>That's the thing. In my experience, the system will fail many, many >times less often than will a hard drive. All Tom has are >throertetical numbers from drive mfrs to back up his claim. My real >world experience shows a very different result. And you minimize the >risk with backups, at least at the most basic level.
I'm seeing power supply, motherboard, and memory failures at about the same rate as I'm seeing drive failures. I cited the manufacturers' specs for the benefit of our perpetual doubters who will discount my vast personal experience. Of course our perpetual doubters will believe whatever they want to believe. >No, they aren't. Hard drives win the failure contest. Hands down. No so. That is why I said to stop buying your drives from Toys R Us. >...you keep arguing with me as if I think replicated >servers are a bad thing. I've made it very clear that they aren't, in >fact they are quite valuable and I wish I had them. But, they are >also very, very costly compared to a RAID array. Again, you are working with out of date ideas. Hardware costs are way down and performance is way up. Dedicated applicances can often lower costs further, decrease maintenance, and increase reliability. For example, I'm running one server here using s $69 linux-based appliance and 2 $100 drives and it is positively a joy. We are trying to drag you into the 21st century. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
