From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Louis-David Mitterrand Subject: Re: recovering after a /dev/sda failure on raid1 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:36:16 +0200 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020806083616.GA2989@apartia.org> References: <20020801144922.GA5284@apartia.org> <15690.63749.164322.929689@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <20020805092641.GA577@apartia.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20020805123619.03eee0a0@mail.harddata.com> <15690.63749.164322.929689@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <20020801144922.GA5284@apartia.org> <15690.63749.164322.929689@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <5.1.0.14.2.20020805123301.03eecec0@mail.harddata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020805123619.03eee0a0@mail.harddata.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020805123301.03eecec0@mail.harddata.com> To: Maurice Hilarius Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:35:47PM -0600, Maurice Hilarius wrote: > The Fujitsu disks have a track record of good reliability. > The IDE disk you mention were discontinued a year ago. > In our experiences Fujitsu disks have as low a failure rate as can be found. > Drives we have used with higher failure rates (SCSI) came from IBM and > Seagate. > The best failure rate we have seen is from Hitachi. > In the case of Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Seagate the rates are very close. > Quantum/Maxtor SCSI are a bit worse. > IBM are substantially worse. > This is based on our DOA and in service SCSI disk failures over the past > year. Thanks for sharing your experience with these brands. It confirms that Fujitsu remains a good choice. I am in the process of returning the failed disk and will ask for a full audit of the failure, which I will summarize to this list when I get it. Cheers, -- ldm@apartia.org