From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263816AbTDULjj (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2003 07:39:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263817AbTDULji (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2003 07:39:38 -0400 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk ([193.201.200.170]:50181 "EHLO chiark.greenend.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263816AbTDULjh (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2003 07:39:37 -0400 From: Peter Benie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16035.56139.893197.189080@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:51:39 +0100 To: Andrew Clayton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Log your dead hard disk drives here In-Reply-To: <1050891929.1091.29.camel@alpha.digital-domain.net> References: <1050883793.1089.16.camel@alpha.digital-domain.net> <20030421014801.GA21949@ip68-101-124-193.oc.oc.cox.net> <1050891929.1091.29.camel@alpha.digital-domain.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Clayton writes: > On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 02:48, Barry K. Nathan wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:09:54AM +0100, Andrew Clayton wrote: > > > http://digital-domain.net/fscked-disk/ > > > > What does your site do that the StorageReview.com Reliability Survey > > doesn't? (i.e., the SR.com survey has been around for a while, why do we > > need another?) > > Perhaps we don't, I wasn't aware of the above site. Looking at it > though, mine is obviously much more to the point and is targeting one > specific area, in that it is just logging drive failures. I'm not convinced that you are collecting enough information to get useful statistics, in particular, you lack any data about drives that haven't failed yet. Suppose that there are two vendors sell drives with identical characteristics, one of which sells twice as many drives as the other. In your statistics, you will give the appearance that the more popular drive performs less well because you see twice as many failures. A better approach would be for people to register their drives with you when they are new, and then to inform you when the drive fails or is otherwise disposed of. The problem here would be to keep track of the drives to ensure that failures really do get logged. Peter