Disk Drive Failures 15 Times What Vendors Say 284
jcatcw writes "A Carnegie Mellon University study indicates that customers are replacing disk drives more frequently than vendor estimates of mean time to failure (MTTF) would require.. The study examined large production systems, including high-performance computing sites and Internet services sites running SCSI, FC and SATA drives. The data sheets for the drives indicated MTTF between 1 and 1.5 million hours. That should mean annual failure rates of 0.88%, annual replacement rates were between 2% and 4%. The study also shows no evidence that Fibre Channel drives are any more reliable than SATA drives."
Repeat? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I am SHOCKED (Score:2, Insightful)
I propose a new term for the heinous practice---"marketing".
Fuzzy math (Score:2, Insightful)
0.88 * 15 = 4?
Re:I believe it... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am shocked! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interface matters why? (Score:3, Insightful)
That statement is based on the long-held assumption that hard drive manufacturers put better materials and engineering into enterprise-targeted drives [Fibre] than they put into consumer-level drives [SATA].
Guess not...
Seagate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I believe it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Masters of estimates (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the hard-drive makers are correct on the size thing - a Gigabyte is 1000 Megabytes, and the OS and software makers are wrong.
Yeah, they coined the term and have been using it for 40 years, but they're wrong.
Gigabytes are actually displayed as Gigabytes, or that the listing is changed to correctly display Gibibytes as the value? (or Kibibytes, Mebibytes, whatever)
Listen, just because someone comes up with a standard doesn't obligate everyone to use it, especially when they already have a perfectly workable system already. Claiming that NIST can impose an unwanted standard on the world is like saying that it isn't a word until the OED lists it.
Re:Personally I am SHOCKED (Score:2, Insightful)
Computers have *always* been used for "real engineering" as you call it. It's only recently that they've gotten cheap enough to use as toys.
WTF? It's like any other part of language, things have different meanings in different contexts. What does "cat" mean?
Ok, so do we rename cat-the-program or cat-the-heavy-machinery (and what about cat-the-animal)? Computers and heavy machinery are both used for "real engineering work", so we can't have any ambiguity in which we're talking about. That would be not acceptable .
No, it's a sign that too many people have sticks up their butts and can't accept that language can be context-dependent. The world is not binary, and failing to recognize this is likely one reason that software sucks so much [technocrat.net].
Also, it's a sign that disks (as opposed to ram) are sized by cost, rather than efficient use of address lines. Ram is sold in power-of-2 sizes for technical reasons. Disks are different enough that those technical reasons aren't there, so marketing dictates that the prefixes used be chosen to give the largest numbers.
Re:I have thought the MTTF is bullshit for a while (Score:3, Insightful)
Ram has no significant inductive load.