On 15/06/2010, at 2:15 PM, Nick Andrew wrote: > Due to heat, or what? That paper seems to concern itself primarily with the > differences between PS (personal storage) drives and ES (enterprise storage), > in order to justify why the SCSI drives have so much higher cost per bit. > > The only mention I could see about multiple disks affecting failure rate > was "A high density server rack with many disc drives grouped close together > may experience much higher temperatures than a single drive mounted in a > desktop computer". Nothing about whether multiple disks in a machine affect > failure rate for any reason other than high temperature (which is usually > controlled in server environments).
Google released a study to suggest heat didn't affect the life of a disk much. I don't think multiples disks in a machine affect failure rate, it's just that the more disks you have, the more likely you are of having a dud one that will fail. It doesn't matter how the disks are arranged, if a company has 1000 PCs with a single disk in each spread throughout Australia, they're more likely to see a disk fail than if you have one PC with one disk. -- http://chesterton.id.au/blog/ http://barrang.com.au/linux/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
