SuperMicro H8SSL-i (ServerWorks HT1000) -- JMR SATAStor 6x2.5" in 1x5.25" array

[Peter Arremann]

<stuff that I said I would not respond to cut>
> > But to stay on the off-topic topic:
> > I fail to see how the fact that a disk has a multiple of xxx capacity
> > makes it better than another that has multiple of yyy GB?
>
> Dude, they roll off _different_ assembly lines using _different_ fabs.
> That's why they have _different_ MTBFs too.
Different assembly lines - yes... Never argued that point of different 
assembly lines. You however said that the enterprise drives are all multiples 
of 9Gb in capacity and rated for 55C. Hence my "why would that make a 
difference" statement.


> > I'm also confused what the 55 and 60 degree is supposed to be?
>
> Sigh -- go read some product specification guides!
> And go read some AMD manuals while you're at it!
Woohoo - so proud of you - you mastered the basic concept of personal attacks 
- which puts you at the same level as a 4 year old or a german shepherd. 

> > The reason for my confusion is that the high end Fujitsu enterprise scsi
> > or fibre disk
>
> Remember, interface does _not_ define reliability (that was an original
> point of this thread ;-).
That was not an argument but a sentence fragment used to specify the exact 
disk I was talking about so you would not be confused on which model I mean.

> > is 60C and 300GB - does that mean its a comodity disk rather than
> > an enterprise drive?
>
> Give me a model -- or at least the series -- so I can look up the
> specifications.  I can tell you more then!
See above comment - Fujitsu has 1 model that is 300GB, scsi. that's also the 
only of their entierprise disks that has 60C specs - all others are 55C...


> I'm only given you the industry typical values, which do seem to match
> across Seagate, Hitachi and Western Digital (who uses Hitachi as a fab
> for most products).  Maxtor seems to be about the same as well.  Not
> sure about Fujitsu.
Good - I have no issue with typical values - but neither capacity being a 
multiple of 9.1GB nor the 55C have anything to do with the reliability of the 
disk. 


> But yes, given that I've yet to see a 300GB 1" model with today's
> "enterprise" platter, mechanical and spindle (10Krpm) technology, it's
> probably safe to assume such.
>
> But I'd rather not assume.  I'd rather get the model or at least the
> series.  ;->
Sorry - I will NOT point you to datasheets again. I've done that often enough 
and each time I did you found some reason on why Intel, AMD or IBM or whoever 
I had were wrong. 
Remember how intel's docs said 36bit bus and you said its 32? 
When Intel docs said 2 clock timing and you said they are wrong?
When AMD docs said its not possible to get access to larger memory regions and 
you said its wrong? 



> > Maybe those things are just that way cause they always were - and have
> > actually nothing to do with the quality or design of the drives?
>
> The reference to the change in operating temperature of commodity was in
> reference to the recent improvements in low-cost fluid and other
> technology now in use.  Before about 2003, most commodity drives were
> rated at 40C.  Now most are rated for 60C.
Correct - not at all related to my question above though. 

> Enterprise capacity drives have typically been rated for around 55C
> operation since the '90s -- since 10Krpm became available.
Correct but unfortunately again not related to what I said.


Still the question I had is still unanswered even though you wrote so many 
lines... So let me ask again:

That is all coincidence, right? The guys designing these disks are the same - 
hence they say "55C worked out well last time, lets do that again" 

Has nothing to do with reliability or anything else. 

> Now how far are we going to argue about this?  Just like the AMD thread?
Remember the time you said that you can't remember the AMD guys name nor find 
the old post - but then you somehow managed to email him? Oh - an amd email 
address always is first.lastname at amd.com? So how did you email him if you 
couldn't remember his name nor were able to find the post? (all in the public 
archives of the 6/2005 centos mailing list) 


> A thread that had you nit-pick on every detail?  A thread that never saw
> you stop challenging me on just about everything?
Yes - as I said back then... I went down one step at the time to figure out 
when we would reach common ground. Unfortunately that never happened before 
my vacation was over and I had no more time waste. 

> That's why I've adopted the "feel free to assume I'm pulling it out of
> my ass" statement.  Because at some point I realize you don't want an
> answer, you want to argue.
Nope - I just spend an enormous amount of time trying to figure out what part 
of your statements are made up and what is true. 

Just like this statement. Yes, Enterprise disks are usually made on their own 
dedicated production lines. Yes, they used to come in multiples of 540MB, 
then later in multiples of 9.1GB. No - that capacity has nothing to do with 
their reliability. 
Yes, the WD RE drives are from the same lines as their other products. Yes, 
they are built with the same components. No, they are much more reliable 
because of the measurements they have to pass. 




Again, my offer stands. Let the AMD thread be - it has nothing to do with this 
argument. Also, if you do not personally attack me, I will not post a 
personal attack either. Lets argue with facts. 

Better even - lets take votes on who even cares to read this thread still and 
then just stop it? That was my original intention anyway. 


Peter.