| 1 |
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:03:02 -0500 |
| 2 |
Barry Schwartz <trashman@×××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> This calculation assumes that the failure of one drive does not give |
| 6 |
> any information about the possible failure of the second drive. That |
| 7 |
> is not the case. If conditions were such that one drive failed, then |
| 8 |
> you should become less confident about your other drives. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
By your own logic here the chance of failure still is not double, it is |
| 11 |
still the original probability, at worst. Also in both of your examples, |
| 12 |
all drives were manufactured at the same time, in which case by two |
| 13 |
differnt makes of drive. |
| 14 |
Raid still equals redundancy, which equals greater chance of your data |
| 15 |
being intact if a drive fails. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Your examples are simply a good example of why it's good to have more |
| 18 |
than one backup, in more than one place. Fire, theft and Act of God are |
| 19 |
other such reasons. |
Archives