Re: On URE and RAID rebuild - again!

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Gionatan Danti wrote:

As you can find, no error was reported, and I don't find anything suspicious in dmesg. At least, this should prove that article as this [1] are quite wrong.

Why do you think that's wrong? 10^-14 is what the vendor guarantees. I have had drives with worse performance (after a couple of months I had several UNC sectors without reading much).

Your claim about the article being wrong is the same as saying that the risk reported of getting into a car accident is wrong because you've driven that amount of kilometers but haven't been in an accident yet.

This is statistics, marketing and warranty, not guaranteed behavior.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@xxxxxxxxx
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux