From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) Subject: Re: ext3 journal on software raid (was Re: PROBLEM: Kernel 2.6.10 crashing repeatedly and hard) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 22:11:04 +0100 Message-ID: <8cdra2-9vs.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es> References: <200501030916.j039Gqe23568@inv.it.uc3m.es> <200501041631.16339.maarten@ultratux.net> <200501042155.34455.maarten@ultratux.net> Return-path: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids maarten wrote: > On Tuesday 04 January 2005 17:21, Peter T. Breuer wrote: > > Maarten wrote: > > > > > Nope, not 10 years, not 20 years, not even 40 years. See this Seagate > > > sheet below where they go on record with a whopping 1200.000 hours MTBF. > > > That translates to 137 years. > > > > I believe that too. They REALLY have kept the monkeys well away. > > They're only a factor of ten out from what I think it is, so I certainly > > believe them. And they probably discarded the ones that failed burn-in > > too. > > > > > Now can you please state here and now that you > > > actually believe that figure ? > > > > Of course. Why wouldn't I? They are stating something like 1% lossage > > per year under perfect ideal conditions, no dust, no power spikes, no > > a/c overloads, etc. I'd easily belueve that. > > No spindle will take 137 years of abuse at the incredibly high speed of 10000 > rpm and not show enough wear so that the heads will either collide with the Nor does anyone say it will! That's the mtbf, that's all. It's a parameter in a statistical distribrution. The inverse of the probability of failure per unit time. Peter