|From: Kai Ponte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |On Wednesday 21 February 2007 11:44:33 pm Joachim Schrod wrote: |> John Andersen wrote: |> > On Wednesday 21 February 2007, Greg Freemyer wrote: |> >> There really is a reason that SCSI costs more in general, and HP |> >> uses good SCSI drives on top of that. |> > |> > The good reason is that people believe they are better, not that |> > they actually ARE better. |And another good reason is that they are DESIGNED to run 24/7 |for extended periods. IDE drives are not built to the same |tolerances. You'll also find the MTBF is much shorter.
This paper show there is NO connection between price, interface technology and MTBF: (The study covers more than 100.000 disks over many years): http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder_html/index.html Google failure trends in large disk drive populations: (more the same but not so diverified) http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/pinheiro.html -- MortenB -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
