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?
And once more: Any explanation why 38902 is tagged wont-fix?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de