From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Use of WD20EARS with MDADM
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:44:22 -0400
Message-ID: <4BD0A716.4080909@cfl.rr.com>
References: <4BAB8D41.4010801@gmail.com> <y2x5bdc1c8b1004211036ra8e10a43kc1a13c2b374a5f7b@mail.gmail.com> <4BCF4693.3020101@buttersideup.com> <201004221913.50692.eye.of.the.8eholder@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <201004221913.50692.eye.of.the.8eholder@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Khelben Blackstaff <eye.of.the.8eholder@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On 4/22/2010 12:13 PM, Khelben Blackstaff wrote:
> WD mentions in the customer help (Answer ID 5357) that these newer drives
> were validated to 1M load/unload cycles and not 300K.

Weird, I wonder if they just forgot to update the spec sheet for the
drive then since it says 300k.