News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hard disc test surprises Google by rtm on Monday February 19, 2007 @11:42PM (#136)
I wonder what this means for practical system design. Do people currently build assumptions about hard drive failure patterns into their systems, in a way that they should change? I suppose independent failure (i.e. copying data to two drives is better than storing it on just one) is the main assumption behind e.g. RAID; I wonder whether Google has any new insight there.
Re:Hard disc test surprises Google by jbert on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @05:01AM (#165)
You should be able to improve over naive RAID by pairing a relatively-high-probability-of-failure drive with a low prob one. i.e. what you *shouldn't* do is the common practice of putting two new drives in a mirror, since they are both in the infant mortality part of the failure curve. What this data suggests is that you'll get a smaller chance of losing data (via simultaneous failure) if you pair a new drive with an older "proven" one (but not one so old that it is nearing end of life).
Re:Hard disc test surprises Google by charliehotel on Friday March 23, 2007 @09:11PM (#6033)
infant mortality is practically non-existent for enterprise-class drives and rare for consumer-class drives.

there is something to gain by using drives from different manufacturers (or different lots from the same manufacturer) within an array.

Re:Hard disc test surprises Google by Elfan on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @05:42PM (#198)
Companies would be interested in saving on cooling costs if its not providing any significant benefit.
Re:Hard disc test surprises Google by charliehotel on Friday March 23, 2007 @09:03PM (#6031)
yes, the classic RAID paper assumes that faults are independent. this is not the case.

some recent work extends the basic analysis to deal with correlated faults.