Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3109 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse] Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population [ Was: About Backing Up]
- From: Randall R Schulz <rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:27:16 -0800
- Message-id: <200702201727.16470.rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
Carlos,
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 16:54, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> The Tuesday 2007-02-20 at 14:26 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > I don't know about that, it is amazing how often disk drives fail
> > > shortly after the warranty expires.
> >
> > Why is that amazing? Does it not make perfect sense to guarantee
> > disks for as long as you say they will probably remain free of
> > error? If the two were out of sync, then we could conclude the
> > manufacturer either is using poor techniques to measure the MTBF or
> > misrepresenting the true value. Now, if they extend the warrantee
> > well beyond the true MTBF, then they'll be paying for a lot of
> > replacements, and it would be foolish or inept of them to do so. If
> > the drives fail long after the warranty period, then they could,
> > without additional expense, extend the warranty further and appear
> > to their potential customers to have great quality products (which
> > their drives do in fact possess).
>
> Mmm. I don't think that is exact.
It is if the business (the drive manufacturer) is run by rational
people. That may be a big "if," but it's true.
> For instance, cars here used to be guaranteed for a year, but they
> last ten, or more, with maintenance. Products usually last longer
> than the warrantied period; but on average, enough of them fail then
> so that it wouldn't be economical to extend the guaranteed. It is a
> question of deciding on the point.
If one's statistics on device failure are good, one can give a maximal
warranty consistent with cost containment while simultaneously
signaling customers your product's quality. If not, then either the
business will not do well or the customers will be unhappy, or both.
"Caveat emptor," like Murphy's Law, is readily misunderstood. Properly
understood, it's not a statement of ultimate pessimism or cynicism, but
rather an observation that a good business tells its customers the
truth about its products or services as best it knows that truth and
those customers are behooved to pay attention in making their
purchasing choices. Then it's government's (and / or the court's) job
to hold the business accountable for its claims, if it misrepresents
them or fails to stand by its commitments.
In the end, it's all statistics. Consider insurance. Those people know
how to work statistics to run a cash-cow, guaranteed profit
scam^H^H^H^Hbusiness.
> --
> Cheers,
> Carlos E. R.
RRS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 16:54, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> The Tuesday 2007-02-20 at 14:26 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > I don't know about that, it is amazing how often disk drives fail
> > > shortly after the warranty expires.
> >
> > Why is that amazing? Does it not make perfect sense to guarantee
> > disks for as long as you say they will probably remain free of
> > error? If the two were out of sync, then we could conclude the
> > manufacturer either is using poor techniques to measure the MTBF or
> > misrepresenting the true value. Now, if they extend the warrantee
> > well beyond the true MTBF, then they'll be paying for a lot of
> > replacements, and it would be foolish or inept of them to do so. If
> > the drives fail long after the warranty period, then they could,
> > without additional expense, extend the warranty further and appear
> > to their potential customers to have great quality products (which
> > their drives do in fact possess).
>
> Mmm. I don't think that is exact.
It is if the business (the drive manufacturer) is run by rational
people. That may be a big "if," but it's true.
> For instance, cars here used to be guaranteed for a year, but they
> last ten, or more, with maintenance. Products usually last longer
> than the warrantied period; but on average, enough of them fail then
> so that it wouldn't be economical to extend the guaranteed. It is a
> question of deciding on the point.
If one's statistics on device failure are good, one can give a maximal
warranty consistent with cost containment while simultaneously
signaling customers your product's quality. If not, then either the
business will not do well or the customers will be unhappy, or both.
"Caveat emptor," like Murphy's Law, is readily misunderstood. Properly
understood, it's not a statement of ultimate pessimism or cynicism, but
rather an observation that a good business tells its customers the
truth about its products or services as best it knows that truth and
those customers are behooved to pay attention in making their
purchasing choices. Then it's government's (and / or the court's) job
to hold the business accountable for its claims, if it misrepresents
them or fails to stand by its commitments.
In the end, it's all statistics. Consider insurance. Those people know
how to work statistics to run a cash-cow, guaranteed profit
scam^H^H^H^Hbusiness.
> --
> Cheers,
> Carlos E. R.
RRS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |