On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:58, Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I'm not sure where the 8 is coming from in your calculations.
Bits per byte ;)
In this case approximately 13/100 or around 1 in 8 odds.
Taking into account the factor 8, and it's around 8 in 8.
Another possible factor to
Will Murnane wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:58, Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I'm not sure where the 8 is coming from in your calculations.
Bits per byte ;)
In this case approximately 13/100 or around 1 in 8 odds.
Taking into account the factor 8, and it's
Hey,
I just had a D'oh! moment I'm afraid, woke up this morning realising my
previous post about the chances of failure was completely wrong.
You do need to multiply the chance of failure by the number of remaining disks,
because you're reading the data of every one of them, and you risk
Without checking your math, I believe you may be confusing the risk of *any*
data corruption with the risk of a total drive failure, but I do agree that the
calculation should just be for the data on the drive, not the whole array.
My feeling on this from the various analyses I've read on the
Hello relling,
Thanks for your comments. FWIW, I am building an actual hardware array, so een
though I _may_ put ZFS on top of the hardware arrays 22TB drive that the OS
sees (I may not) I am focusing purely on the controller rebuild.
So, setting aside ZFS for the moment, am I still correct
User Name wrote:
Hello relling,
Thanks for your comments. FWIW, I am building an actual hardware array, so
een though I _may_ put ZFS on top of the hardware arrays 22TB drive that
the OS sees (I may not) I am focusing purely on the controller rebuild.
So, setting aside ZFS for the
Thanks for your comments. FWIW, I am building an
actual hardware array, so een though I _may_ put ZFS
on top of the hardware arrays 22TB drive that the
OS sees (I may not) I am focusing purely on the
controller rebuild.
Not letting ZFS handle (at least one level of) redundancy is a bad
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
Thanks for your comments. FWIW, I am building an
actual hardware array, so een though I _may_ put ZFS
on top of the hardware arrays 22TB drive that the
OS sees (I may not) I am focusing purely on the
controller rebuild.
Not letting ZFS handle
I am building a 14 disk raid 6 array with 1 TB seagate AS (non-enterprise)
drives.
So there will be 14 disks total, 2 of them will be parity, 12 TB space
available.
My drives have a BER of 10^14
I am quite scared by my calculations - it appears that if one drive fails, and
I do a rebuild, I
User Name wrote:
I am building a 14 disk raid 6 array with 1 TB seagate AS (non-enterprise)
drives.
So there will be 14 disks total, 2 of them will be parity, 12 TB space
available.
My drives have a BER of 10^14
I am quite scared by my calculations - it appears that if one drive fails,
10 matches
Mail list logo
