Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:04:26 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@googlemail.com> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quick ZFS mirroring question for non-mirrored pool Message-ID: <20100517160426.3c54e07e@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <20100516210151.GA82487@icarus.home.lan> References: <4BEF2F9C.7080409@netscape.net> <4BEF3137.4080203@netscape.net> <20100516001351.GA50879@icarus.home.lan> <alpine.GSO.2.01.1005151937300.12887@freddy.simplesystems.org> <4BEF4A73.8060905@netscape.net> <20100516015850.GA55302@icarus.home.lan> <657328.88413.qm@web112409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20100516210151.GA82487@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:01:51 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> wrote: > * As has been proven time and time again, MTBF means jack squat since > it's all hypothetical (mathematically calculated based on fab tests). > Drives will fail no matter what; that's the entire reason people are > using ZFS to begin with. ;-) > Hear, hear! I bought a supposedly server-grade SATA drive from Samsung a few years ago. Within a few weeks the spindle broke. I'd never seen that before and was totally flabbergasted. Who'd expect the spindle to break? -- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100517160426.3c54e07e>