[j-nsp] High failure rates for M7i/M10i hard disks?

[Richard Gross]

Ahhh...  

/dev/ad0s1a     443176  73732   333992    18%    /
/dev/ad1s1f   36364494 922162 32533174     3%    /var

I knew that (really!)

								richg

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Yaklin [mailto:myaklin at g4.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 3:10 PM
To: Richard Gross
Cc: Lars Erik Gullerud; Joe McGuckin; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] High failure rates for M7i/M10i hard disks?



On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Richard Gross wrote:

> Wouldn't a hard drive handle reads/writes to /var/log better than a
> Compact Flash device?
>
> I mean, on my M7i I have:
>
> ad0: 244MB <SanDisk SDCFB-256> [695/15/48] at ata0-master PIO4
> ad1: 19077MB <HTS548020M9AT00> [38760/16/63] at ata0-slave UDMA33
>
> and the router boots off ad0:
>
> I'm assuming the live file system is on ad0: since that is the boot
> device.
>

On my M40s, I do boot off ad0. But ad2 has a partition mounted
as /var.

And that is the only partition mounted off of ad2.

I imagine your m7i is similair. Log in as root and type "df".

m

> My question is if the router is writing to the Compact Flash every 10
> seconds 24x7, how long will a Compact Flash work before breaking?
>
> I know I'm missing something so I'm sure I will be enlightened
> shortly...
>
> Thanks.
> 								richg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lars Erik
> Gullerud
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 7:19 AM
> To: Joe McGuckin
> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] High failure rates for M7i/M10i hard disks?
>
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Joe McGuckin wrote:
>
> > It seems like this was an ill-advised attempt to lower the
> manufacturing
> > cost of the RE.
> >
> > However, for the price they charge for the RE ($15,000 list price
for
> > compact PCI cpu card that probably cost them no more than $2500),
one
> would
> > certainly think that Juniper would specify 'industrial' or 'server'
> quality
> > components. I hope we're not going to see further reliability issues
> because
> > some purchasing manager decided to save $20 by specifying other
> components
> > that were designed with a lifetime 5% or 10% duty-cycle.
>
> Putting lower-spec (read: cheaper) HDDs into REs where they ALSO
shaved
> costs by no longer putting internal flash on them by default, is
> hopefully
> not symptomatic of a trend to let short-term financial gains outweigh
> engineering principles and customer satisfaction. However, with other
> recent Juniper decisions seeming to follow the same pattern (hm, IPv6
> licencing, anyone?), I must admit to having some fear for the future
> these
> days, after having preached Juniper to management and customers for
the
> last few years...
>
> /leg
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>