Re: MTBF interpretations (Re: ZFS performance)

2022-11-13 Thread hede
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 07:52:32 -0500 Dan Ritter wrote: > No, my interpretation is that the average (mean) lifetime > between failures should be the listed value. At 114 years, half > of the population of drives should still be working. > > This is obviously not congruent with reality. I'd say

Re: MTBF interpretations (Re: ZFS performance)

2022-11-12 Thread Stefan Monnier
>> > Claimed MTBF: 1 million hours. Believe it or not, this is par >> > for the course for high-end disks. >> > >> > 24 hours a day, 365 days a year: 8760 hours per year. >> > 100/8760 = 114 years. >> > >> > So, no: MTBF numbers must be presumed to be malicious lies. >> >> With your

Re: MTBF interpretations (Re: ZFS performance)

2022-11-12 Thread Dan Ritter
hede wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:05:33 -0500 Dan Ritter wrote: > > > Claimed MTBF: 1 million hours. Believe it or not, this is par > > for the course for high-end disks. > > > > 24 hours a day, 365 days a year: 8760 hours per year. > > 100/8760 = 114 years. > > > > So, no: MTBF

MTBF interpretations (Re: ZFS performance)

2022-11-12 Thread hede
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:05:33 -0500 Dan Ritter wrote: > Claimed MTBF: 1 million hours. Believe it or not, this is par > for the course for high-end disks. > > 24 hours a day, 365 days a year: 8760 hours per year. > 100/8760 = 114 years. > > So, no: MTBF numbers must be presumed to be