Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008, Brandon High wrote:
>> CMU released a study comparing the MTBF enterprise class drive with
>> consumer drives, and found no real differences.
> That should really not be a surprise. Chips are chips and in the
> economies of scale, as few chips will be be used as possible. The
> quality of manufacture could vary, but this is likely more dependent
> on the manufacturer than the product line. Manufacturers who produce
> crummy products don't last very long.
> True enterprise drives (SCSA, SAS, FC) have much lower media read
> error rates by an factor of 10 and more tolerance to vibration and
> temperature. They also have much lower storage capacity and much
> better seek and I/O performance. Failure to read a block is not a
> failure of the drive so this won't be considered by any study which
> only considers drive replacement.
> SATA "enterprise" drives seem more like a gimmick than anything else.
> Perhaps the warranty is longer and they include a tiny bit more smarts
> in the firmware.
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
> zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss mailing list