On Friday 09 November 2007 10:24, Eberhard Roloff wrote: > Randall R Schulz wrote: > > On Friday 09 November 2007 09:43, Robert Smits wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> http://209.85.163.132/papers/disk_failures.pdf > > > > ... > > While this study is great, one should not forget that the google > usage environment of hundreds of thousands disks is not directly > comparable to what most people do at work or at home. > > I.e. most people do not work in air-conditioned data centers and most > desktops do not run 24x7.
My systems run 24x7 and are, technically, servers (which is why I run them continuously), though they do not generally experience the kind of continuous use that the Google servers do. As far as environmental controls, it's also true I do not have air conditioning, but most of the time (outside a few summer days, when I sometimes will shut down the systems), the temperature where these machines are located is only a little warmer than the typical air-conditioned machine room. > So while the google paper is certainly informative and a rare beast > in regard to the observation of a very large population of commodity > harddisks, I would not dare to use any of it's conclusions lightly > for my home usage pattern. Well, it is empirical information. And I don't even know what it means to "use it's conclusions lightly." How would you suggest the results be biased to better reflect office use? Are you just saying that if SMART gives a warning I should "be afraid, be very afraid?" > regards > Eberhard Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
