On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:54:11 -0600 Mark Allums <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that three drives is 50% more likely to fail than two. More than > fifty percent, if I remember my statistics at all correctly. Do you mean it is more likely that any one drive in the array fails when you have more drives, or do you mean that it is more likely for a drive in the array to fail when you have more drives? If drives fail more often when being used in an array with more drives, what makes them fail more often under those conditions? > If you > have a RAID 50 running on 20 SAS drives and 4 hot spares, you better > buy quite a few for cold spares, you are going to lose a drive every > two months. At least. You are saying that the age of the drives doesn't matter at all? Then if you lose one drive out of 24 every month, that would mean that about 4% of all drives sold are junk. The new ones you get could fail within the first few minutes ... or not work at all. Or does this mean that it takes about one to two months before you find out if a new drive is junk? And why don't the drives that are junk fail in the first few minutes or don't don't work at all? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
