From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brad Campbell Subject: Re: Recommended pci-e 1x SATA cards. Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:57:08 +0800 Message-ID: <4DA959E4.2080605@fnarfbargle.com> References: <4DA6CCFE.8020708@crc.id.au> <20110414185304.5bc1cca5@natsu> <4DA6F3B2.8080402@crc.id.au> <4DA7513C.5020505@hardwarefreak.com> <20110415105846.1c4ec630@natsu> <4DA8B91C.8050005@hardwarefreak.com> <20110416111554.09066e73@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110416111554.09066e73@natsu> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roman Mamedov Cc: Stan Hoeppner , Steven Haigh , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 16/04/11 13:15, Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:31:08 -0500 > Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Again, you're taking isolated incidents and assuming they are the norm, >> when they most certainly are not. > > "Significant percentage of 3132 cards" is enough to me. Where I'd define > "significant" even as 0.01% of cards. But actually it is likely to be more > widespread than that, given this exact problem was already reported by 3 > people on 3 continents with 2 different OSes and 4 controller boards, > including a brand-name one. If this is not a wide sampling, I don't know what > is... > That it happens at all is enough for me to stay _well_ clear of them. I can't recommend anybody go within a mile of a product that works well for 99.999% of people, when if you happen to be the 0.001% sample you don't know you are until the device has silently eaten all your data. When there are alternatives available that have 0 reports of silently eating data, why would you even chance it?