On 04/19/2013 07:38 PM, mathog wrote: > Joe Landman <[email protected]> wrote
[...] > Unfortunately the MTBF is nonsense because the AFR will not > stay at 0.63%, and most likely would not be measured at 0.63% at Ask a vendor what their AFR measurements are. They aren't 0.63%. [...] > the spec. Hard to say because the disk spec sheets do not actually > disclose > where the AFR number came from, and few people keep disks that long. > We see 2-4% on the good drives, 5+ on the bad ones. This is from our return data. Typically 1 drive death per 25-50 drives, per year. > The ratings I would really like the industry to use might be called > ef1, ef5, and ef10, where each is the percent of disks that are Look at AFR from vendor returns. Not from the manufacturer. -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Founder and CEO Scalable Informatics, Inc. email: [email protected] web : http://scalableinformatics.com http://scalableinformatics.com/siflash phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 fax : +1 866 888 3112 cell : +1 734 612 4615 _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
