Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:43:37 -0400 From: Michael Powell <nightrecon@hotmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Raid 1+0 Message-ID: <nf657m$pff$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <571533F4.8040406@bananmonarki.se> <57153E6B.6090200@gmail.com> <20160418210257.GB86917@neutralgood.org> <64031.128.135.52.6.1461017122.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <20160419153824.7b679129f82a3cd0b18b9740@sohara.org> <40267.128.135.52.6.1461098148.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > > On Tue, April 19, 2016 9:38 am, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:05:22 -0500 (CDT) >> "Valeri Galtsev" <galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >>> Not correct. First of all, in most of the cases, failure of each of the >>> drives are independent events >> >> If only that were so. When the drives are as near identical as >> manufacturing can make them and have had very similar histories they can >> be >> expected to have very similar wear and be similarly close to failure at >> all >> times, which makes it likely that the load imposed by one failing will >> push >> another over. > > Sigh. You need suggest some physics that will make one drive affect > another (aged or not aged doesn't matter for me). Then you will have me in > your team. Vibration is kinetic energy. :-) -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?nf657m$pff$1>