Is there any info for failure rates versus type of main bearing
in the drive?
I thought everyone used something like the "thrust plate" bearing
that seagate (maybe?) introduced ~10 years ago.
Failure rate vs. drive speed (RPM)?
surely "consumer-grade" rules out 10 or 15k rpm disks;
their collection of 5400 and 7200 disks is probably skewed,
as well (since 5400's have been uncommon for a couple years.)
Or to put it another way, is there anything to indicate which
component designs most often result in the eventual SMART
events (reallocation, scan errors) and then, ultimately, drive
failure?
reading the article, I did wish their analysis more resembled
one done by clinical or behavioral types, who would have evaluated
outcome attributed to all the factors combinatorially.
Failure rates versus rack position? I'd guess no effect here,
since that would mostly affect temperature, and there was
little temperature effect.
funny, when I saw figure5, I thought the temperature effect was
pretty dramatic. in fact, all the metrics paint a pretty clear
picture of infant mortality, then reasonably fit drives suriving
their expected operational life (3 years). in senescence, all
forms of stress correlate with increased failure. I have to
believe that the 4/5th year decreases in AFR are either due to
survival effects or sampling bias.
changes in air pressure also had a measurable effect. Low
humidity cranks up static problems, high humidity can result
does anyone have recent-decade data on the conventional wisdom
about too-low humidity? I'm dubious that it matters in a normal
machineroom where components tend to stay put.
regards, mark hahn.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
