On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 02:57:51PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Tim Cutts wrote: > > >That's not true, unfortunately. They also have different design > >criteria for duty cycles, and more stringent MTBF testing > >requirements. There's been a lot of assertion in this thread, > >without any real data, so this post provides links to some hard data > >provided by disk manufacturers. > > Thanks for the facts. > > >As many others have said in this thread, you get cheap or reliable. > >You do not get both. > > Which perfectly fits to my real life experience. BTW, could we now > come back to the development related issues in this thread. I do > not really mind whether it is cheap or not what we expect people > to do who want to mirror Debian: We add them a burden (even adding > cheap stuff is some work and we should make sure that it is worth > the effort) and the initial question is: How can we meaningful > provide large chunks of data?
I tried to give a meaningful answer to that in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but received no reply; I guess it got drowned in the silly "all disks are reliable!" noise. Perhaps you may want to read the three final paragraphs there and give your opinion. -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
