From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: 3TB drives failure rate Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:59:10 +0600 Message-ID: <20121029015910.018efb17@natsu> References: <11510711257.20121028131527@oudeis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/T/e2oBTuHqJ674/IYdEJzXt"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Murphy Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/T/e2oBTuHqJ674/IYdEJzXt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:50:41 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: > not for RAID 5 > RAID 5 implies 24x7=20 > they're also not a 24x7 drive Wrong on pretty much all points. Or perhaps you are just way too easily misguided by marketing b/s. > I *think* it's a 24x7 drive also but I could be wrong. There is no such thing as a "24x7" drive or not. Given adequate cooling, powering down and spinning up are an order of magnitude much more stressful and wearing out operation for a drive than just staying on. --=20 With respect, Roman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Stallman had a printer, with code he could not see. So he began to tinker, and set the software free." --Sig_/T/e2oBTuHqJ674/IYdEJzXt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlCNjo4ACgkQTLKSvz+PZwjo0gCfTDed7yTeacsR+A+Sot3VqFzm eZkAoIZZ0LM6F5YHsusYMDWnDYc3OMBB =6L5H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/T/e2oBTuHqJ674/IYdEJzXt--