Back to the point (was: Re: Reasonable maximum package size ?)
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 02:57:51PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Tim Cutts wrote:
> >That's not true, unfortunately. They also have different design
> >criteria for duty cycles, and more stringent MTBF testing
> >requirements. There's been a lot of assertion in this thread,
> >without any real data, so this post provides links to some hard data
> >provided by disk manufacturers.
> Thanks for the facts.
> >As many others have said in this thread, you get cheap or reliable.
> >You do not get both.
> Which perfectly fits to my real life experience. BTW, could we now
> come back to the development related issues in this thread. I do
> not really mind whether it is cheap or not what we expect people
> to do who want to mirror Debian: We add them a burden (even adding
> cheap stuff is some work and we should make sure that it is worth
> the effort) and the initial question is: How can we meaningful
> provide large chunks of data?
I tried to give a meaningful answer to that in
<[🔎] 20070611201627.GB20581@country.grep.be>, but received no reply; I guess
it got drowned in the silly "all disks are reliable!" noise.
Perhaps you may want to read the three final paragraphs there and give
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22