Kyle McDonald wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
roland wrote:
i have come across an interesting article at :
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2859&p=5
Can anyone comment on the claims or conclusions of the article itself?
It seems to me that they are not always clear about what they are
talking about.
Many times they say only 'SATA' and other times 'enterprise SATA' or
'desktop SATA'
Likwise, somtimes they use the term SAS/SCSI, other times just
'enterprise' without specifying SAS/SCSI or SATA.
I'm not clear on why the interconnect technology would have any affect
on the reliability of the mechanics or electronics of the drive?
The interconnect doesn't have any affect on the mechanics. I think it
is just a market segmentation description. A rather poor one, too.
I do beleive that the manufacturer's could be targeting different
customers with the different types of drives, but it's not clear from
that article how Enterprise SATA drives compare to Enterprise SAS/SCSI
drives. All I can get from the article for sure is don't use SATA
desktop drives in a server.
Is 1 bit out of 10^14 really equal to 1 bit in 12.5TB read?
10^14 bits / 8 bits/byte = 12.5 TBytes.
Does that really translate to an 8% chance of a read error while trying
to reconstruct a 1TB disk in a 5 disk RAID5 array?
Yes.
Something tells me that someones statistics calculations are off... I
thought these problems were much rarer?
I believe these are rarer, for newer drives at least. Over an expected
5 year lifetime, this error rate may be closer to reality.
-- richard
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
