Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!intelca!oliveb!hplabs!felix!scgvaxd!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Are these the disks for me?
Message-ID: <211@desint.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-May-86 21:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: desint.211
Posted: Fri May  9 21:51:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 03:23:12 EDT
References: <411@brl-smoke.ARPA> <189@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Organization: SAH Consulting, Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 17

In article <411@brl-smoke.ARPA> dms@mit-hermes.arpa writes:

>The 3.0 MB/S CDC drive has the same MTBF as the eagle and eagle II. In
>addition, its seek time it 16 ms average, compared with 18 ms for the
>eagle. All in all, it seems like a better drive than the eagle II.

I presume the MTBF you are talking about is the manufacturer's spec in each
case.  If so, remember that in one case (CDC) you are talking about a
number that is a theoretical calculation.  On the other hand, the Eagle's
reputation for reliability derives from experience in the field, not
the manufacturer's MTBF spec, which may be much more conservative.  For
reference, a year is 8766 hours.  If you plan on running 24-hours a day,
a 10,000-hour MTBF is pretty poor.
-- 

	Geoff Kuenning
	{hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoff