Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Tracy R Reed wrote: > >> - - SCSI, FC, SATA, ATA are equally reliable (surprising and embarrassing >> to people who have spent big bucks on SCSI/FC but both studies came to >> the same conclusion based on 100,000 disks each) > > While I'm certainly someone who advocates SATA in RAID 1, I'm > unconvinced about the comparisons with SCSI. > > I don't recall any of the studies actually using 10K SATA drives and > comparing them to 10K SCSI drives. And, for 15K drives, the only option > is still SCSI. > > That means that they are likely comparing fairly new, large ATA 7200RPM > drives to *significantly* older 7200RPM SCSI drives. That's a bit unfair. > >> Unfortunately google wussed out and won't tell us whose drives are the >> most/least reliable. The second study didn't mention this either. I >> guess they are afraid of getting sued. > > Actually, I found the Google paper a prime example of academics creating > a not terribly useful paper because it lacks details. They hide the raw > data, it is difficult to reproduce, and it lacks predictive power. > > We would be better off if they published the raw data without comment.
I seem to be more willing to accept their paper as being a reasoned interpretation of what must be an enormous amount of raw data. Although, they admittedly do it through handwaving discussion (of a few sub-sets of statistics), I got the impression they took some care to remove the influence of wildly different hardware types from their general conclusions. I took (assumed) their working under the Google name to be a hint they would likely be more interested in real-world conclusions (ie, of value to their operations), than in the ivory-tower world .. but who knows? Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
