Reindl Harald writes: > it's common sense that additional load on drives which have the same > history makes a failure one one of them more likely "It's common sense" = the logical fallacy of hand waving. Show me statistical evidence. I have had lightly loaded drives die in under 2 years and heavily loaded ones last 10 years. I have replaced failed drives in a raid and the other drives with essentially the same wear on them lasted for years without another failure. There does not appear to be a strong correlation usage and drive failure. Certainly not one that is so strong that you can claim with a straight face that after the first failure, a second one can be expected within X IOPS, and the IOPS needed to rebuild the array are a significant fraction of X.
