2 ms·
Which is at odds with the (correct) definition of MTTF as a rate-based calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail
by macemoneta 16y ago
Which is at odds with the (correct) definition of MTTF as a rate-based calculation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate
The person that wrote the Wikipedia article you referenced read the same mythology you did; repeating it doesn't make it true. The plural of anecdote is not fact.
Think about it yourself for a moment. If two cars are traveling 50mph, does that make their average speed 25mph (50/2)? Applying a divisor to a failure rate based on the number of devices is nonsensical.
- moe 16y agoIf you are so convinced then why don't you correct the wikipedia article? Perhaps also call up LSI and Adaptec, who use the same formula in their documentation. http://storageadvisors.adaptec.com/2005/11/01/raid-reliability-calculations/ http://storageadvisors.adaptec.com/2005/11/01/raid-reliabili... But what do they know, they only build raid controllers...
- macemoneta 16y agoYou're right, there's no reason to try to correct the 20% of the population that believes the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's a lost cause; you win.
- moe 16y agoYou're right, there's no reason to try to correct the 20% of the population Erm wait, didn't I just suggest the exact opposite? If you really think everyone has been wrong about this all the time then please, by all means, correct wikipedia or write a blog post about the matter. This "false" formula has been out there for quite some time and you find it in pretty much every write-up on the topic, including those from RAID-vendors who (I'd hope) have spent some thought on these things. On the flip-side I haven't found a single source to support your thesis. Thus I'd say the burden of proof is on you.