From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mikael Abrahamsson Subject: Re: On URE and RAID rebuild - again! Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:40:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <53D8ACF0.1070202@assyoma.it> <53D8ED99.90606@assyoma.it> <20140731073121.38cd1773@notabene.brown> <53D9ED48.9000307@assyoma.it> <1370eb7a35b628323646a86094a26912@assyoma.it> <20140803134834.7773b0ab@notabene.brown> <53DF8A31.8060609@assyoma.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53DF8A31.8060609@assyoma.it> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Gionatan Danti Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Gionatan Danti wrote: > As you can find, no error was reported, and I don't find anything > suspicious in dmesg. At least, this should prove that article as this > [1] are quite wrong. Why do you think that's wrong? 10^-14 is what the vendor guarantees. I have had drives with worse performance (after a couple of months I had several UNC sectors without reading much). Your claim about the article being wrong is the same as saying that the risk reported of getting into a car accident is wrong because you've driven that amount of kilometers but haven't been in an accident yet. This is statistics, marketing and warranty, not guaranteed behavior. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se