On 04/19/2013 07:38 PM, mathog wrote:
> Joe Landman wrote
[...]
> Unfortunately the MTBF is nonsense because the AFR will not
> stay at 0.63%, and most likely would not be measured at 0.63% at
Ask a vendor what their AFR measurements are. They aren't 0.63%.
[...]
> the spec. Hard to say bec
Joe Landman wrote
> Use AFR and warranty, ignore everything else. MTBF does not
> correlate
> at all against AFR, and AFR is an objective measure.
MTBF is the inverse of the AFR times the number of hours in a year.
The specs for a randomly selected Seagate drive are:
MTBF hours 1.4 million
A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 05:10:37PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote:
> Anyone running a research computing setup has encountered both of these
> issues. Virtualisation mitigates the damage that can be done, without the
> expense of an separate toy cluster, bu
FYI
Just posted a short note on ClusterMonkey.net about Intel's Ethernet
Open Network Platform that splits the control plane from the data plane.
http://www.clustermonkey.net/Select-News/intel-splits-the-network.html
--
Doug
--
Mailscanner: Clean
_
> cat /dev/zero | sudo tee /dev/sda
Talking about scissors and X-ray generators ...
--
Nicholas M. Glykos, Department of Molecular Biology
and Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace, University Campus,
Dragana, 68100 Alexandroupolis, Greece, Tel/Fax (office) +302551
On 19 April 2013 16:28, Gregory Matthews wrote:
> On 18/04/13 18:07, Hearns, John wrote:
> > As an aside, a normal user can trigger a drop of the caches before the
> start of a job.
> > If you have looked into it, sudo echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches is
> well nigh impossible.
>
> eh?
> echo 3
On 18 Apr 2013, at 19:45, Adam DeConinck wrote:
> Tying in another recent discussion on the list, "root access" is
> actually one of the places I've seen some success using Cloud for HPC.
> It costs more, it's virtualized, and you usually can't get
> HPC-specialized hardware, so it's obviously
On 4/19/2013 11:47 AM, mathog wrote:
>> My overall impression is that, when buying drives, the single piece of
>> manufacturer provided data that
>> best correlates with the actual expected life of the drive is the
>> length of the warranty. Even that is little
>> protection against a bad batch th
> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:50, Fred Youhanaie wrote:
>> On 19/04/13 00:01, mathog wrote:
>>> High end SATA and SAS disks claim MTBF values that work out to over
>>> 100
>>> years, and yet it is a common
>>> observation that certain models fail at rates entirely inconsistent
>>> with those values. F
On 18/04/13 18:07, Hearns, John wrote:
> As an aside, a normal user can trigger a drop of the caches before the start
> of a job.
> If you have looked into it, sudo echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches is well
> nigh impossible.
eh?
echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm
> But you can run an suid C
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 01:58:26PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> As someone who got a full year+ dose of radiation in a few seconds
> courtesy of an ... er ... less careful? ... graduate student who
> overrode some of the interlocks to test the accelerator ... I've got
> some ... er ... internal
Google published a study on disk failures.
http://research.google.com/pubs/pub32774.html
They provide some interesting data on AFR as a function of disk age among other
data
Deepak
On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:50, Fred Youhanaie wrote:
>
>
> On 19/04/13 00:01, mathog wrote:
>> High end SATA
On 19/04/13 00:01, mathog wrote:
> High end SATA and SAS disks claim MTBF values that work out to over 100
> years, and yet it is a common
> observation that certain models fail at rates entirely inconsistent
> with those values. For instance,
> 75% of all drives of one model dead in < 6 years.
13 matches
Mail list logo
