http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/adaptec_webinar_on_disks_and -- richard
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2008, Brandon High wrote: > >> CMU released a study comparing the MTBF enterprise class drive with >> consumer drives, and found no real differences. >> > > That should really not be a surprise. Chips are chips and in the > economies of scale, as few chips will be be used as possible. The > quality of manufacture could vary, but this is likely more dependent > on the manufacturer than the product line. Manufacturers who produce > crummy products don't last very long. > > True enterprise drives (SCSA, SAS, FC) have much lower media read > error rates by an factor of 10 and more tolerance to vibration and > temperature. They also have much lower storage capacity and much > better seek and I/O performance. Failure to read a block is not a > failure of the drive so this won't be considered by any study which > only considers drive replacement. > > SATA "enterprise" drives seem more like a gimmick than anything else. > Perhaps the warranty is longer and they include a tiny bit more smarts > in the firmware. > > > Bob > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
