From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:15:57 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] Irwin 285
In-Reply-To: <20100122093409.GB34725@freebie.xs4all.nl>
References: <20100121185917.GA25619@freebie.xs4all.nl>
	<20100121204829.672d59a7.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
	<20100121195619.GE25687@freebie.xs4all.nl>
	<20100121195818.GF9956@bitmover.com>
	<20100121200034.GG25687@freebie.xs4all.nl>
	<20100121201125.GG9956@bitmover.com>
	<46b366131001211226v1a133901mefa41b3258a5b173@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100121204157.GI25687@freebie.xs4all.nl>
	<20100121204429.GH9956@bitmover.com>
	<20100122101424.50c0e716.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>
	<20100122093409.GB34725@freebie.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <20100122111557.11f08ebc.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:34:09 +0100
Wilko Bulte <wb at freebie.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> recoverable read error rate I presume.
No. NON-recoverable read error rate: 1 per 10^14 bits.

And this is for light desktop use. Heavy IO on the disk may increase
failure rate. At least this is written in the technical data sheet of
the drive. WD drives are not that much better: 1 per 10^15 bits.

For sure: High end SAS drives have better numbers. But they cost much
more EUR / GB and require a SAS adapter...
-- 


tschüß,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/

_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs