 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SATA takes on a life of its own</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/storage-soup/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/storage-soup/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/</link>
	<description>A SearchStorage.com blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 20:05:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/storage-soup/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/#comment-6775</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://storage.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/13/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/#comment-6775</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This user&#039;s cautionary tale is nothing more than simple and obvious math, and has nothing to do with SATA as a technology.

As drives get larger, the number required to provide a given level of storage is reduced, and redundancy is the normal procedure for any large operation.

The drive issues cited are normal with any technology, and have been with uf for a very long time.  I manage a room of machines that have been running for many years, and the modern machines as well as the early ones all run raid, regardless of the technology used in the drive array.

For performance we use raid-10, which can frequently see multiple drive failures.  We uae a quality drive controller for many systems (3ware) and software raid for many others (typically scsi based systems).  I don&#039;t see many multiple failures, but there have been a few.  In one case the machine was simple a test machine, and the programmers wanted it to fail, so they ignored it&#039;s dead drive for two years...  And some of our large raid 10 systems would see multiple failures when a critical fan would fail...  In all of our raid 10 arrays we have been lucky in never loosing two drives from a single mirrored pair.

But the point is that drives fail... they always have, and they probably always will.  Sounding an alarm because someone may have a lot of drives spinning is silly.  Anyone with that many drives will have a sutably sized staff keeping the systems running.  I have seens rooms full of spinning hard drives for years.  When I was a teen, I remember a tour of a university lab with a whole room full of disk drives, feeding a system in the next room that took about 20 hours to fully boot (after several media changes)...  And there was a staff of people there to fix it when things went bad.  the only thing that has changed is drived are smaller, faster, and hold more data, with a single drive holding more data than 100 rooms did in the 70&#039;s.  

I just don&#039;t get what the big deal is...  Is this the first time this author has ever stopped to do the math on drive failures?

I have 48 drives in the room I am in now (my home office) and several drives have failed over time with this equipment... Sata has brought with it better drives with more speed and fewer failures...  yet they still fail, so I&#039;m  supposed to be scared?


Geez...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This user&#8217;s cautionary tale is nothing more than simple and obvious math, and has nothing to do with SATA as a technology.</p>
<p>As drives get larger, the number required to provide a given level of storage is reduced, and redundancy is the normal procedure for any large operation.</p>
<p>The drive issues cited are normal with any technology, and have been with uf for a very long time.  I manage a room of machines that have been running for many years, and the modern machines as well as the early ones all run raid, regardless of the technology used in the drive array.</p>
<p>For performance we use raid-10, which can frequently see multiple drive failures.  We uae a quality drive controller for many systems (3ware) and software raid for many others (typically scsi based systems).  I don&#8217;t see many multiple failures, but there have been a few.  In one case the machine was simple a test machine, and the programmers wanted it to fail, so they ignored it&#8217;s dead drive for two years&#8230;  And some of our large raid 10 systems would see multiple failures when a critical fan would fail&#8230;  In all of our raid 10 arrays we have been lucky in never loosing two drives from a single mirrored pair.</p>
<p>But the point is that drives fail&#8230; they always have, and they probably always will.  Sounding an alarm because someone may have a lot of drives spinning is silly.  Anyone with that many drives will have a sutably sized staff keeping the systems running.  I have seens rooms full of spinning hard drives for years.  When I was a teen, I remember a tour of a university lab with a whole room full of disk drives, feeding a system in the next room that took about 20 hours to fully boot (after several media changes)&#8230;  And there was a staff of people there to fix it when things went bad.  the only thing that has changed is drived are smaller, faster, and hold more data, with a single drive holding more data than 100 rooms did in the 70&#8242;s.  </p>
<p>I just don&#8217;t get what the big deal is&#8230;  Is this the first time this author has ever stopped to do the math on drive failures?</p>
<p>I have 48 drives in the room I am in now (my home office) and several drives have failed over time with this equipment&#8230; Sata has brought with it better drives with more speed and fewer failures&#8230;  yet they still fail, so I&#8217;m  supposed to be scared?</p>
<p>Geez&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Laswell</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/storage-soup/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/#comment-6773</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Laswell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://storage.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/13/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/#comment-6773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Doesn&#039;t LLNL require shredding of drives?  Even though a drive goes bad it could still have recoverable data on it.  In a secure site like LLNL procedures should call for proper disposal of replaced drives adding even more cost to a replacement.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t LLNL require shredding of drives?  Even though a drive goes bad it could still have recoverable data on it.  In a secure site like LLNL procedures should call for proper disposal of replaced drives adding even more cost to a replacement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry Ribbeck</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/storage-soup/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/#comment-6772</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry Ribbeck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://storage.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/13/sata-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own/#comment-6772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with Jerome&#039;s cautionary notes. While the number of extremely large deployments of Sata are relatively small. Medium deployments are just as vulnerable to loss as disk sizes increase. Medium deployments of sata or FC should be considering the mean time between failure for their media, early failure detection criteria and especially note the rebuild time for large sized disks.  The new 750GB and 1T sata drives take a long time to rebuild.  If you configure raid sets with a large number of drives (&gt; 5) per raid group, the probability of dual drive failures increase due to the long rebuild time for these drives.  The mean time to failure is still small but if all of the disks are new and started duty cycles at the same time, the peak failures should be predictable and extra caution should be exercised.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Jerome&#8217;s cautionary notes. While the number of extremely large deployments of Sata are relatively small. Medium deployments are just as vulnerable to loss as disk sizes increase. Medium deployments of sata or FC should be considering the mean time between failure for their media, early failure detection criteria and especially note the rebuild time for large sized disks.  The new 750GB and 1T sata drives take a long time to rebuild.  If you configure raid sets with a large number of drives (&gt; 5) per raid group, the probability of dual drive failures increase due to the long rebuild time for these drives.  The mean time to failure is still small but if all of the disks are new and started duty cycles at the same time, the peak failures should be predictable and extra caution should be exercised.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
