On 08/17/2017 09:54 PM, mathog wrote:
On 17-Aug-2017 11:10, Alex Chekholko wrote:
The Google paper from a few years ago showed essentially no correlations
between the things you ask about and failure rates. So... do whatever is
most convenient for you.
This one?
http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf
They didn't do a control where they put some drives on a shelf and then
tested
them later. Nor did they (as far as I can tell) do a control with
installed disks powered on but not spun up. Every disk they tested was
fully "live". It is true that they didn't see any big difference based
on usage, temperature, or vibration (to the limited extent they could
measure this).
Also that study was published in 2007 so the 5 year failure rates are
for disks which were made in 2001 or 2002. That is a long, long time
ago in terms of disk technology and density. I'm not even sure that I
believe their results from 10 years ago are still fully applicable to
current disks.
Regards,
David Mathog
mat...@caltech.edu
Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech
_______________________________________________
Related study at:
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/fast07.pdf
Computer failure data repository seems to be not so active
(https://www.usenix.org/cfdr)
May suggest some of these issues be considered in VI4IO (might also get
an answer to this question there as well) -
https://www.vi4io.org/contribute/start
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
