Hello Jesus,
Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 5:54:35 AM, you wrote:
JC -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
JC Hash: SHA1
JC Joerg Schilling wrote:
What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability to work.
JC I thought modern
Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Link to the paper is http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
As for the spares debate, that is easy: use spares :-)
What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Schilling wrote:
What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability to work.
I thought modern disks could be instructed to do offline scanning,
using any idle time available.
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
I believe that the word would have gone around already, Google engineers have
published a paper on disk reliability. It might supplement the ZFS FMA
integration and well - all the numerous debates on spares etc etc over here.
Good paper. They validate the old
Richard Elling wrote:
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
I believe that the word would have gone around already, Google
engineers have published a paper on disk reliability. It might
supplement the ZFS FMA integration and well - all the numerous
debates on spares etc etc over here.
Good paper. They
On 18/2/07 4:56, Akhilesh Mritunjai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks
I believe that the word would have gone around already, Google engineers have
published a paper on disk reliability. It might supplement the ZFS FMA
integration and well - all the numerous debates on spares etc etc over
Hi Folks
I believe that the word would have gone around already, Google engineers have
published a paper on disk reliability. It might supplement the ZFS FMA
integration and well - all the numerous debates on spares etc etc over here.
To quote /.
The Google engineers just published a paper on
