On 04/17/98 11:01:58 you wrote:
sirbruce@ix.netcom.com wrote:
As has been pointed out before, Netapp tests DRAM they get from Samsung before it goes out the door, and does find failures, so I can't see how Samsung direct could be any MORE reliable, unless Netapp somehow damages the DRAM in assembly or shipment.
Bruce
Maybe it may make people feel better if NetApp could supply some facts that would show people what kind of failure rate they find on some of the different lines of products. It is one thing to say that they find failures, but are the failures 1 in 10 or 1 in 200?
I would agree that if the failure rate is high (i.e. 1 in 10), then NetApp is certianly pushing the edge of the components. BUT (and a big but at that) if the failure rate is much lower (e.g. 1 in 100 or 200 components), then I would tend to say that NetApp's argument for testing does not hold any water. The small amount of failures that NetApp finds could be attributed to manufacturing defects and delivery problems.
I basically agree (I'm not sure if I'd draw the line at 1 in 200), but I would point out that if they can be attributed to manufacturing defects, then you are just as likely to get such a defect direct from the supplier. So again, going through a supplier like Samsung isn't going to be more reliable, although how much less reliable (i.e. 0.5%) may be negligible for your particular environment.
It would, however, somewhat dispel the notion that the filers push the edge of the components.
Bruce