Used hardware can fail. New hardware can fail.
A failure is a failure.
I think I saw it said here that if one's data
were important enough that a RAID was being
considered then the purchase of used equipment
should somehow be ruled out, but I must have
missed some crucial piece of that argument
because I don't see how owning a new (versus
used) RAID controller saves you if it fails.
If you can get a replacement controller under
warranty why can't you get a replacement
controller by other means? Anybody here who
hasn't seen shiny new equipment fail (either
intermittently or catastrophically) doesn't get
out much. I won't claim that the MTBF of used
equipment is always as good as that of shiny
new equipment (though it's often no worse) but
that's the cost/benefit analysis you make when
considering how much you're willing to pay.
I think I also saw a claim (or at least an
insinuation) that the failure modes of a
used RAID controller would somehow be more
catastrophic than those of a new one. With all
due respect, that seems to me to be a good
example of a psychofact (something that "seems
like it oughta be true" because it reflects
one's prejudices or phobias) rather being a
truly supportable position...
*MTBF == Mean Time Between Failures
*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************
