Your tone with me is completely unwarranted, wtallis. This is what he wrote:
"
Note: This article is from 2007 and is quite prescient.
It's completely shameful how bad the specified read error rates are now.
It's to the point that if you read an entire disk 4TB you have a 32% chance of one bit being wrong!
That means hard disks can no longer be considered reliable devices that return the data written to them, you now need a second layer in software checking checksums.
For extra money they sell hard disks with 10^15 reliability instead of 10^14 - this should be standard!
"
Even after his (and your) clarification, it makes me chuckle to read that :) He started, "It's completely shaemful how bad the specified read error rates are now" and then ended "For extra money they sell hard disks with 10^15 reliability instead of 10^14 - this should be standard!"
This is hilarious. I guess some people here have no sense of humor though.
Error rates are not nearly as exact as that - more like marketing figures.
"
Note: This article is from 2007 and is quite prescient.
It's completely shameful how bad the specified read error rates are now.
It's to the point that if you read an entire disk 4TB you have a 32% chance of one bit being wrong!
That means hard disks can no longer be considered reliable devices that return the data written to them, you now need a second layer in software checking checksums.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4TB+%2F+10^14+bit++in+%...
For extra money they sell hard disks with 10^15 reliability instead of 10^14 - this should be standard!
"
Even after his (and your) clarification, it makes me chuckle to read that :) He started, "It's completely shaemful how bad the specified read error rates are now" and then ended "For extra money they sell hard disks with 10^15 reliability instead of 10^14 - this should be standard!"
This is hilarious. I guess some people here have no sense of humor though.
Error rates are not nearly as exact as that - more like marketing figures.