Pluto bad drives issue

[Tony]

We're using these: http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=st3300657ss-chta-15k.7-sas-300gb-hd&vgnextoid=6664470bd8cc1210VgnVCM1000001a48090aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ac2421baad8e110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD&reqPage=Model

For pluto anyways but across all machines it could be a set of 15k.6 or 15k.5 as well. We're looking more reliability than speed so it makes no difference to us.

As far as SAS drives I've seen them fail in production as well. I remember 2 in the last year both 15k RPM drives.

Oh and Titan it's going to get swapped out as well it was on the to-do. It's a tough game to play people want the biggest and the best and SAS cost a lot more over SATA disks. Raptors were a great middle ground but it got to a point where for us there was no cost difference if we just switched the entire fleet. A lot of hosts though still use sata disks and some not any raid at all. They're using the enterprise sata disks typically which cost a lot more but not as much as sas disks still. They have close to the same annual failure rate advertised anyways.

[speedturtle]

Notice posted: http://forums.hawkhost.com/showthread.php?t=907

Basically 15K SAS over 10K SATA drives is the only change.

Good call. I applaud the move.

Well this is pretty amusing we deployed the replacement Pluto only to discover a failed drive! It died literally after deployment. So much for SAS being more reliable the name Pluto is what's cursed!

And a good thing, too, that you have a sense of humor to carry you through Pluto's unbelievably bad luck.

[Brian]

It's not a sense of humor, really, he's just so delusional from the lack of sleep

[speedturtle]

It's not a sense of humor, really, he's just so delusional from the lack of sleep

Hmm...if this is delusional, I wonder what happens when he is deranged?

[Cody R.]

Hmm...if this is delusional, I wonder what happens when he is deranged?

Pretty sure he's close, migrations are time consuming, boring and tedious.

[Tony]

The drive gods are angry for us questioning them. Marlin two raptor drives failed and replaced without issue: http://forums.hawkhost.com/showthread.php?t=925

Saturn SAS drive failed and replaced: http://forums.hawkhost.com/showthread.php?t=926

Interesting error came from the saturn one:

saturn        Sense data: Hardware error (TRACK FOLLOWING ERROR).  Controller 1, channel 0, SCSI device ID 1, LUN 0, cdb [28 00 0d 3d 44 00  00 02 00 00 00 00], data [70 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 09 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00]  

Physical drive removed: controller 1, connector 0, device 1, S/N (serial here).

Logical device is degraded: controller 1, logical device 0 ("RAID10-A").

[/CODE]




So yes it's true SAS drives do fail!  Odd number of failures this week though that's 5 in a weeks span.