On Nov 28, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Google had a study some years ago, which at that point showed desktop drives and enterprise drives had about the same error rate. That may be slightly outdated now, but still… The only Google drive study I'm aware of is this one: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/archive/disk_failures.pdf That study is about drive failures, not SDC. They aren't looking at corruption, but rather SMART errors relating to disk failure. And the disks are consumer grade, none were enterprise. The main finding of the study is the correlation (or lack thereof) of SMART prediction of drive failure (the health status of the drive) to reality. It turns out SMART is not so great at doing this if you only trust the health status. You can get better prediction of drive failure by taking specific attributes into account, but even this isn't completely reliable. New attributes are needed to better predict drive failures is the take away. Chris Murphy-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
