On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:56:58 -0400 "Michel Salim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] > > Lets agree that the market for drives, arrays and related stuff is big and > > contains just about any example one needs for arguing :-) > > Nevertheless we probably agree that if john doe meets big-player and tries > > to > > warranty-replace a non-dead drive he will have troubles. > > > If John Doe is using redundant storage in the first place, he just > needs an emergency disk that can be swapped-in for a failing disk, and > then stress-test the failing disk to death, get it replaced by > manufacturer, and the replacement becomes the next standby/emergency > disk. Even more expensive than drives is working time. So you just swapped the problem the wrong way round. I would not have expected that it is hard to argue why it makes sense to replace dead disks when they are dead, because you then know that they are dead and everybody else looking at the brick knows it too - without spending time and money for testing and arguing about warranty issues. Does anybody remember the word "keep it simple" ? PS: of course we agree in your description of a minimal replacement strategy. -- Regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
