If you really want to see MTBF numbers for both SCSI and
SATA....given your previous investment with HP, they'll push back,
but they will give them up. I'm assuming you are working directly with HP.
~m
At 04:53 PM 9/14/2006, Mark Hahn wrote:
If someone would be so kind as to help me find *real* data that
demonstrates higher SATA/IDE failure rates as compared to SCSI, I would
most appreciate it.
I have only two very wimpy factoids to offer: my 70TB HP SFS
disk array (36 SFS20 shelves with 11x 250G SATA each) has had just
one bad disk since it was installed (say, March).
so that's one disk in 1.7Mhours, aggregated, actually a lower rate
than I would have expected...
that storage is attached to 768 compute nodes, each of which has
2x80G SATA, which I believe have had no failures (6.6Mhours!).
the hardware was all assembled and burned in quite a while
before being delivered, so this should be the bottom of the bathtub.
during some periods, machineroom temperatures have not been
exceptionally well-regulated :(
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
