Am 18.05.21 um 20:51 schrieb Phillip Susi:
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
do what you want - others like to be better safe then sorry especially
when there is no longer redundancy and you don't surive any error until
the rebuild is finished
and yes i replaced last week a 365/24 for years running Seagate *desktop
drive* in a RAID10 with 50k power up hours but that don't imply that you
can expect that
