From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1ICNS4-0000ug-KB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:29:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6LMSEMk032034; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:28:14 GMT Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6LMMf66024620 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:22:42 GMT Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so1425289wah for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:22:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=CCWP2IHdLXm7/AXLeqafRM2xzZ3eI5+2CBkJ07TjC5EFtT+NUNm8T6boPU0UwcW3fl/GtQMISLCcb9kaTp8guv9Uj9ADz1zuXm8Ov9CalDw198IjqA7GtfQl3QldYsiMtbQnFlWxkS4QqZPfejQmLsL4Tvvl1R2LF7Ll8pRgJ2c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=crM/LGaDIqcWTEYoZm6Lqsse3A5Ddq75x1vfAk1IASkC4PsUQRM/EjV46bdlCFKNNqEG2BdypLGe6Iw5CpBjve7UUkU2j1MxhYkrMA3iWnTf3kKKy6pl2gVBjwMQUAYY/pnTRSRUjfE4fBDup8VTS4iDkVEYrG56K7ZaAjDIjfw= Received: by 10.114.94.1 with SMTP id r1mr1702483wab.1185056561161; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kureyon.gremlins.biz ( [61.10.251.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j38sm7352859waf.2007.07.21.15.22.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:22:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Crayon Shin Chan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Linux becomes expensive ;) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 06:22:34 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200706021955.27607.f.philipp@addcom.de> <6c9e6bf80707180932v6b9c8827jf99f868be36f0076@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707220622.35652.crayon.shin.chan.uk@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 32c8208e-7521-46a7-99c8-43087bf3be18 X-Archives-Hash: 67668665caad48d6a1fbe7126731ff90 On Thursday 19 July 2007 01:28, Anno v. Heimburg wrote: > I remember a rather old (mid-90s) study done by WD which concluded that > a start-up poses wear on the HD equivalent to 30h of idling. I can't > find it any more, and it's been ten years, so things might be different > these days, but the point stands: A start-up comes with significant > wear. Years ago drives suffered from "stiction" (not sure whether modern drives have the same problem). > IIRC, at some point, IBM even produced very high performance hard disks > for the mainframe market that would run for years, but were only > guaranteed to survive two spin-ups. > > Anno. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list