On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 sirbruce@ix.netcom.com wrote:
If the difference is so great NetApp should be proud to publish their statistics without an NDA.
If that were the case, every company should publish all of their internal practices.
We are definitely, not on the same channel. I said nothing about their practices. How they obtain the results was not a concern of mine. As long as they publish the results they can make claims based on them. If they don't publish such results any claims are just spin.
So long as Netapp catches at least one bad memory chip before it gets to the customer, my statement is strictly true, no matter any data to the contrary.
No, any claims that NetApp memory is significantly superior to others is not true in this case. One module out of thousands is hardly meaningfull statistical data.
(Unless, I suppose, you can claim the testing somehow damages memory that otherwise wouldn't fail.)
Ahh, you read my mind. It is unlikely that they would damage a lot of memory during testing, but damaging one is certainly plausible. Such mishap would nullify a benefit of one module described above.
Perhaps you live in some magical candyland of perfect management. Or perhaps you are simply a beneficiary of this new age of low unemployment. However, people have indeed been "axed" for buying failing memory (and other parts) for the equipment vendor.
That may be true, but I bet you there were a lot less (percentage wise) of those cases than cases where someone purchased third party components all other factors held the same.
Different curve but the same principle. While most of the failures do follow the curve you describe, there are still the "out of spec" failures like the memory ones that happen strictly because of loading, not burn-in time. Many drives that fail in a Netapp can be used in your SCSI PC for years without any problems, because they don't talk to the drive in the same way.
I don't disagree with you on this point in reference to drives. I never did. I bet that drives are still the most likely component to fail in a computer system.
Ahh, I see. You have personaly axe to grind against Netapp, so you just want to toss in a snipe at every opportunity. Sorry, I thought you were interested in a serious discussion.
No, I simply stated that one of the drives failed. No big deal, this happens quite often with other manufacturers.
No duh. Guess what - memory in groups must also behave in a way as not to disturb the other memory (and other stuff going on on the motherboard).
I don't think memory is as likely to influence other modules especially that the modules today are of relatively high density which means that you'll only have a couple of pieces of memory per system, number that is significantly smaller than drives.
Now, since this is leading nowhere, it's time to end the polemics.
Tom