21 Feb
2007
21 Feb
'07
11:14 a.m.
At 01:02 PM 2/21/2007, you wrote:
There's an even *more* interesting paper on this
from a CMU post-doc (math warning...lots of statistics) that seems to blow away many (if
not all) assumptions about drive failures/quality/raid/etc.
I saw this a few days ago but thought I shouldn't post because
it would be off-topic.
Here's the CMU paper:
http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder_html/index.html
And here's a summary of Google's results:
http://storagemojo.com/?p=378
Both examinations dethrone many rules of thumb. MBTF isn't that meaningful,
there's little difference in longevity between consumer and "enterprise"
class drives, beliefs about infant mortality, heavily used drives
don't fail much more often than little-used drives, SMART isn't, etc.
- John