On Friday 30 September 2011 14:37:20 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Arnold Krille <arnold AT arnoldarts DOT de> 
> wrote:
> > And don't argue that disks with consecutive serial numbers won't break
> > together: From the three disk failures I encountered where I had a second
> > of the same type, that second broke shortly after.
> 
> I'd argue that it is not likely that a working disk is going to fail
> in that one pass that it takes to rebuild a raid/mirror,

That is exactly my point: With one of our clients the second broke (luckily!) 
shortly after the mirroring to the new second disk finished. Had it broken half 
an hour earlier the data would have been toast.

Two disks manufactured by the same people and machines at the same time, used 
at the same place with the same usage pattern _will_ fail at the same time.
The common argument is that two disks in raid1 are independent statistics. But 
the problem is when the disks are the same, they don't have independent 
statistics...

Have fun,

Arnold

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2

_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/