On Sep 7, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >> The common use for desktop drives is having a single disk without >> redundancy.. If a sector is feeling bad, it's better if it tries a bit >> harder to recover it than just say "blah, there was a bit of dirt in >> the corner.. I don't feel like looking at it, so I'll just say your data >> is screwed instead".. In a raid setup, that data is sitting safe(?) on >> some other disk as well, so it might as well give up early. > > Still, there's a wee difference between shaving and cutting your head off.
Today, it is in the best interest of the suppliers to do this. They can show concrete product differentiation to support increased margins. Business 101. > A drive retrying a single sector for two whole minutes is nonsense, even on a > desktop > or laptop, at least when it does so without logging the error to SMART or > summing up > the issues so to flag the disk unusable. And, beleive it or not, a drive > spending 2 minutes > trying to fetch 512 bytes from a dead sector is quite unusable when the the > number of > bad sectors start climbing. Yes, but that is the current state of the market, and this change has become more pronounced in the past few generations. Experienced systems architects know this and design accordingly. The disk vendors provide product roadmaps so you can plan for the future (Seagate's is quite good reading :-) -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss