From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Fidelman Subject: Re: 3TB drives failure rate Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:45:56 -0400 Message-ID: <508DA794.9030106@meetinghouse.net> References: <11510711257.20121028131527@oudeis.org> <20121029015910.018efb17@natsu> <20121029021643.1c9e3195@natsu> <46B8932A-58A5-4C1A-9C8C-DCCD5D3A1CD9@colorremedies.com> <6FAB7F92-66E2-4276-9774-B80DAC92E450@colorremedies.com> <20121029031851.42a5e1e9@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121029031851.42a5e1e9@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Cc: "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-raid.ids Roman Mamedov wrote: > I do not think there is a state in modern HDDs that there would be a > sector which consistently takes 30-120 seconds to read. Those are > either unreadable at all, or readable after a delay -- and then > already remapped by the HDD into the reserved zone, so the delay is > not there the next time. Umm... yes. This is a common near-failure mode with WD disks, as I learned the hard way when I discovered that I had a server that had been built with desktop drives rather than enterprise drives. Took quite some time to figure out why my server was slowing WAY down. I still kind of wonder why md doesn't consider exceptionally long read times as a reason to drop a drive from a RAID array. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra