[nylug-talk] Paper IT certs and disk drive fabrication differences -- WAS: Slim home server

[Bryan J. Smith]

Chris Knadle wrote:  
> ?  No.  The specifications say 700,000 hours MTBF, 50,000
> "contact start-stops", and nothing about how many hours per
> day --

Okay then, 14 hours/day for 700,000 hours MTBF.  ;)

You're still not reading my entire post.  You're pick'n and choosing
what you want to assume, believe or otherwise.

I hope you'd pick up on this, as I've made every, detailed effort to
explain many, many concepts.  But you keep removing the context of
those posts.  My knowledge comes from direct product managers of
various lines.  In fact, I was just chatting with one last night.

He said most of his peers are now getting their commodity 187-320GB
platters from the same fab in Malaysia is now.  Western Digital seems
to have the largest stake.  That's quite a change in just the last
few years it seems.

Chris Knadle wrote:  
> please explain where you're getting this 8 hours/day usage from.

Industry standard practice.  This is technical fact.

Commodity disk:
  50,000 starts/stops * X hours = the MTBF rating  ;)

But MTBF is not considered an usable number though, and hasn't been
for a long time.  But it is still quoted.  A better practice is the
change of failure, assuming standard operating conditions, per 6 or
12 months.  It currently stands at just over 2%.  Different lots
often vary by +/-0.6% or greater last time I checked, but I'm
probably outta date.

With that all said ...

I'm sorry to be rude, but when you actually want to discuss the
greater points I was making, feel free to re-engage.  Until then, I
must ignore your posts.  Again, don't mean to be rude, but I'm
re-covering industry standard facts and practices over and over and
over again.  You're just taking what you want out of my posts and
making _microcosms_ out of them, _ignoring_ the context I made them
in.

Result?

Nothing but a meta-discussion well outside any of my points.  ;)

If that's not enough ...

  "You win.  I'm wrong.  You're right."

Believe what you want to believe.  I'm not the consultant I am
because I want to believe what I want.  I'm just the consultant
because I put things in terms of mitigating risk and avoiding legal
issues.  That's engineering, not some arbitrary black/white
assumption of technology.  ;)


-- 
Bryan J. Smith       Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org  http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
------------------------------------------------------
       Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution