From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Russell Coker Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] hard drive shock tolerance Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:51:57 +1100 References: <3A57B052.FA0DFBB2@wrkhors.com> <01011001391323.05036@lyta> <20010110195439.A11865@bar.nowhere> In-Reply-To: <20010110195439.A11865@bar.nowhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0101130551570E.27982@lyta> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com, zoo1@corecomm.net On Thursday 11 January 2001 11:54, zoo1@corecomm.net wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:39:13AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > >My "gut feeling" is that drives are more susceptible to damage now. I > > know of cases of older 3600rpm drives being dropped, being hit by a c= ar > > while operating (car entered building through the wall of the compute= r > > room), and suffering numerous other mechanically damaging events with= out > > data loss. I belive that modern 10K rpm drives are not as solid. > > hit by a car? you're serious? i can't even imagine a modern disk An idiot in the drive of the next house mistook the accelerator pedal in = an=20 automatic car for the brake, she kept pressing it harder when the car did= n't=20 stop. The car entered through a solid brick wall that the computer had been in=20 front of. The computer ended up on the floor at the far side of the room= (~4=20 meters away). The car was stopped from going further through the house by rubble which=20 supported much of the weight of the car and prevented the rear wheels fro= m=20 gaining traction. For some time the car was burning rubber on the spot..= =2E > >Also drives are more susceptible to heat problems. 3600rpm drives > >could operate with all their air-holes blocked and while surrounded by > >other hard drives without problems. You can't stack two new 10K rpm > >drives without good fans. > > i'll take your word for it. myself, i never see drives like that in > PCs, just in workstations and RAID arrays with more than adequate > cooling; but then again, i don't see PCs much these days anymore. Most hardware work I do is with PCs. When dealing with rack mounted serv= er=20 equipment I generally do the software and someone else deals with the=20 hardware. Given a choice I prefer hard drives with lower rotational speeds because = of=20 the lesser heat production. Read the spec sheets and you'll see that as = a=20 general rule 10K rpm drives use twice as much power as 7200 rpm drives, t= wice=20 the power =3D=3D twice the heat! The really worrying thing about heat death is that it's one of the few wa= ys=20 that I could imagine two hard drives in a mirrored set dieing before I ge= t a=20 chance to replace one! --=20 http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page