A presenter from Doubletake said that the IDE and SATA HD's use plastic bearings.. He also indicated that in some tests where heavy read/writes (transactional) they failed much earlier. In some cases they would fail in one week. If anyone has any studies or info please post.
----- Original Message ---- From: Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Main Discussion List for KPLUG <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:03:31 AM Subject: Re: Hard drive reliability Tracy R Reed wrote: > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: >> That means that they are likely comparing fairly new, large ATA 7200RPM >> drives to *significantly* older 7200RPM SCSI drives. That's a bit unfair. > > They aren't. Read the papers. :) I did. I didn't see where they controlled for that. I *certainly* didn't see anything about 10K+ RPM SCSI drives. Could you point me at the pages where they reference how they controlled that? > Most of their data agreed with the other papers which are independent of > google. I find that pretty interesting. Give me the *data* and then I will find it interesting. >> We would be better off if they published the raw data without comment. > > Would you really have sifted through all of that data and done a similar > analysis for yourself? Would I? No. But there are some people I trust who would. > I know I wouldn't. And would you have kept the > results to yourself and given us the raw data without comment as well? I > mean, someone has to comment right? Sure. But comment without data is useless. If the paper said, "SMART catches 99% of all errors or SMART catches 1% of all errors", you couldn't verify that either. Data with comment is great. Data without comment is acceptable. Comment without data is unacceptable. And, Google *knows* this. That paper exerts a bunch of force on the internal QA departments of Google's competitors without giving them any information with which to work. I have *seen* this. Firsthand. Companies do this at ISSCC (International Solid States Circuits Conference) *all the time*. Companies have published papers that have circuits that simply *do not work*. Companies have announced details about chips that were *verifiably false* after delaminating the chip. All of this solely for the purpose of creating misinformation for competitors. Do I think Google is doing that? Probably not. But I can't verify without data. -a -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
