The disk error mystery

By | March 10, 2010, 5:28am PST

Summary: You’d think that after 50 years and many billions sold, disk drives would be well understood. And you’d be wrong. Take the case of latent sector errors.

You’d think that after 50 years and many billions sold, disk drives would be well understood. And you’d be wrong. Take the case of the outer-track errors.

Thanks to zoned bit recording the bit density of each track is roughly constant across the disk. But more errors occur in the outer tracks - and on some drives on the inner tracks too. What could be going on?

Latent sector errors (LSE) are errors that are undetected until you try to read the data and then the drive says “oops!” In the landmark study An Analysis of Latent Sector Errors in Disk Drives (pdf), researchers found that 8.5% of all nearline disks like the ones most of us consumers user are affected by latent sector errors.

If, like me, you use more than 10 drives, you probably have a drive with LSE. Maybe even two. And if a drive has 1 LSE, it is much more likely to have others.

Deep dive
In a deeper analysis of the same data, Understanding latent sector errors and how to protect against them researchers found an interesting anomaly:

The first part of the drive shows a clearly higher concentration of errors than the remainder of the drive. Depending on the model, between 20% and 50% of all errors are located in the first 10% of the drive’s logical sector space. Similarly, for some models the end of the drive has a higher concentration.

Here’s the graph from the paper:

Error location on various drive models. Capital letters denote SATA drives, lowercase SAS & FC drives.

Error location on various drive models. Capital letters denote SATA drives, lowercase SAS & FC drives.


Now why is that?
In Understanding the authors wonder:

We speculate the areas of the drive with an increased concentration of errors might be are areas with different usage patterns, e.g. filesystems often store metadata at the beginning of the drive.

Sounds reasonable. But later they note:

In particular, a possible explanation . . . might be that these areas see a higher utilization. . . . [But in other research at Google there was no] correlation between either the number of reads or the number of writes that a drive sees (as reported by the drive’s SMART parameters) and the number of LSEs it develops.

Which is it?
Disk drives are busy boxes. Possible explanations are:

  • Poor data. Maybe the Google data isn’t fine-grained enough to discern workload-related LSEs.
  • Wobbly outer tracks. Lower block numbers usually map to outer tracks where linear velocity is highest. Rotational vibration might cause LSE to cluster on outer tracks.
  • Start/stops. Spinning up a drive is wearing: cold bearings; motor stress; maybe even head wear until fly-height is reached.
  • Lube migration. Disk platters are lubricated to keep them smooth and to minimize wear. This layer can migrate to the outer tracks over time, where it would increase head fly height, making bits harder to read.

The Storage Bits take
At present the mystery remains. But the implications for RAID arrays are important.

The 1988 RAID paper assumed that disk drive failures and errors are uncorrelated. But we now know that isn’t correct.

Disk failures tend to occur together. LSE - which can kill a RAID 5 recovery - also tend to cluster on particular drives, particular places on drives, and at particular times. Failures are way more correlated that we suspected 20 years ago.

Few desktops should use RAID. If you do use an external SATA RAID 5, make sure you have a reliable backup because chances are good you’ll need it. RAID 6 is the way to go when using large SATA drives.

Modern disk drives are amazing precision devices that make fine Swiss watches look as delicate as a strip mine in comparison. Yet we don’t understand everything about them.

Kudos to companies like NetApp who support research into disk behavior. As more of the world’s data resides on disks, the more important this research becomes.

Comments welcome, of course.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Robin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small.

Disclosure

Robin Harris

Robin Harris is a president of TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm in northern Arizona. He also writes StorageMojo.com, a blog which accepts advertising from companies in the storage industry, and has a 25 year history with IT vendors. He has many industry contacts, many of whom are friends and all of whom he has opinions about. Robin has relationships with many companies in the technology industry. Every company he writes about may have sought to influence his opinion through carefully-crafted marketing messages and self-serving white papers, gifts ranging from desk calendars, t-shirts, lunches and trips as well as analyst or consulting assignments. He also invests in some technology companies. He may accept payment for services in stock as well. Robin discloses financial investments in or client relationships with companies named in Storage Bits. To help readers sort out the gold from the dross in his writings, Robin tries to communicate his reasons as clearly as he can. If you agree, you are intelligent and discerning. If you disagree, well, you disagree. In all cases, Robin encourages readers to subject everything they read, see or hear on the internet or from politicians to some simple questions: * What assumptions are implicit in the world view and judgments of the author? * What, if any, is the factual basis for the opinions the author expresses? * Is it reasonable, logical and clear? Your critical faculties: use ‘em or lose ‘em!

Biography

Robin Harris

Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. He introduced a couple of multi-billion dollar storage products (DLT, the first Fibre Channel array) to market, as well as a many smaller ones. Earlier he spent 10 years marketing servers and networks. After leaving corporate life he founded TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm. He also developed StorageMojo into one of the top storage industry blogs.

Robin writes, consults, coaches and lives among the mountains of northern Arizona.

52
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The disk error mystery
FAULKNE 13th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Firmware on disk
raggi 10th Mar 2010
The think that is hurting consumer the most nowadays is that disks read the firmware of the disk platter. Done to lower costs but makes it far more difficult to salvage data.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 10th Mar 2010
Are you saying that a machine's BIOS is located on disk? It's not - the BIOS is on the motherboard - take your HDD's out of your PC and see if you can still get to the BIOS. Hint: You can.
0 Votes
+ -
He is not talking about the bios...
mrlinux 10th Mar 2010
He is talking about the controller code on the disk itself.
0 Votes
+ -
hard drive firmware
DNSB 10th Mar 2010
The hard drive has two types of firmware. A bootstrap loader which resides on the controller (call it equivalent to the BIOS) and runtime firmware which is loaded from a reserved area on the hard drive itself (call it the operating system). The controller executes the bootstrap during startup to load the runtime code. It's cheaper than adding flash memory to the controller but if the hard drive has issues in the firmware storage area, you're out of luck. Main reason why the old trick of swapping controller cards when attempting to recover data from a hard drive is very little use on newer hard drives.
0 Votes
+ -
If that is the case now, at least for consumer drives, I can see where data salvage is going to be difficult, if not impossible. This makes data backup even more crucial.
0 Votes
+ -
This would kill the disk
zackers 11th Mar 2010
This kind of error would cause a whole disk failure. That's not what this article is talking about, and I don't recall hearing about this as a major issue.

Besides, wouldn't the drive store multiple copies of its firmware? That's how defect maps used to be stored way back when.
For some people reliability may take precedence over storage space. I wonder if it would be beneficial to take a 7% hit (5% to 10%) on the storage space to reduce potential errors? It does not seem as if it would be difficult to map a HDD so that the outer 7% or so of each platter was blocked out as unusable.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Done years ago . . .
R Harris 10th Mar 2010
John,

Vendors started shipping 2.5" platters inside 3.5" years ago. At 15k
RPM aluminum isn't stiff enough to handle 3.5". There were some
glass platters on some fast drives for a while, but I think the industry
stopped using them several years ago.

Part of the vendor problem is that it is easier to sell capacity to
civilians than "fewer errors". The first company to do what you suggest
would be hurt - which is part of the reason for an industry-wide
migration to the 2.5" form factor in the next 5 years.

Robin
0 Votes
+ -
Aluminum platters...
gypkap@... 10th Mar 2010
are stiff enough, and were used decades ago to store data. In the 80s, big CDC hard disks with removable aluminum platters and flying heads were the standard. However, in case of a head crash, the drives generated hundreds of aluminum and ferrite shavings. It took the techs days to clean shavings out of the drives.

That's why sealed "Winchester" hard disks replaced CDC drives. Modern sealed hard disks are the successors to Winchester drives.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes but
AndyPagin 11th Mar 2010
As I recall the platters were about a quarter of an inch thick, and the spindle was about six inches across.

Those old EDUs were industrial grade tools built so survive constant yanking in & out of drives by not particularly careful or gentle computer operators.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think early drives spun at 7200+ rpm. And tolerances were much, much greater back then. A little wobble to the platter could be tolerated. These days when platters have tens of thousands of tracks on them, it's a bit more difficult.
I was thinking, aftermarket and being implemented by the consumer rather than being implemented by any specific vendor.

Based on the article it would seem that a consumer who was concerned more with data integrity than storage space could get a utility that would allow the consumer to block out the outer 7% of any HDD. This would slightly reduce the storage capacity but it would theoretically increase reliability.

I would not expect manufacturers to block out usable storage space on HDDs but some consumers may consider doing just that.
0 Votes
+ -
The solution is around the corner - SSD
goingbust 10th Mar 2010
In 10 years we will be thinking of rotating magnetic storage like we now think of magnetic core memory.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Maybe, but I'm not convinced.
R Harris 10th Mar 2010
Not only are disks cheap, but they also handle certain workloads very well
- better than flash. Phase change memory may alter the landscape, but I
think Jim Gray put it very well when he said disk is the new tape and flash
is the new disk. Tape is still in wide use in the enterprise and archive
quality disks would be popular with consumers - if vendors build them.

Robin
0 Votes
+ -
Me neither
AndyPagin 11th Mar 2010
There's a limit to how many times you can change the state of any address in a flash memory. No big deal for memory in cameras & mp3 players etc. But for a business server handling tens of millions of writes a day its a non-starter.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
shineon4me 10th Mar 2010
The graph looks a lot like a hysteresis loop.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Please, elucidate!
R Harris 10th Mar 2010
I'd like to know more.

Robin
0 Votes
+ -
Magnetic field a property of the disk shape?
victor.gutzler@... 10th Mar 2010
If the hysteresis shape is indicative of the cause of magnetic head failure at the disk edges, then maybe we should be designing a media in a shape other than a disk, and instead of spinning the media, the head should be the moving part, something like a (head) laser emanating from a point source inside a spherical media and writing on the inside surface.
0 Votes
+ -
that would be cool...
Homeyjo Updated - 10th Mar 2010
a tube drive... and probably quieter too. probably use less power as it would take as much force to turn. Maybe you should patent it.
0 Votes
+ -
It was called drum memory. The heads were fixed and the drum-shaped magnetic media rotated. No head movement involved. They also did some with a disk and fixed heads. It was expensive, relatively speaking, but fast because there was virtually no seek time.

Weird science side note: In the Vietnam-era A6 Intruder fighter-bombers, the second-seater (RIOs) had a drum memory under his seat for the advanced (for the time) electronics in the plane. It would sometime not spin up, with the heads sticking to the drum in the tropical heat... There was an official mini-Louisville Slugger baseball bat issued for the RIOs to address the problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Magnetic field strength/unit area
DeusExMachina 10th Mar 2010
Was thinking the same thing. From the graph, it may indicate a
variation in magnetic field strength per unit area of data. As overall
field strength for a given unit of data goes up (as spread of data in
physical area goes up) the chance of LSE in turn increases. On drives
with the opposite situation, where LSEs occur in the near sectors, this
may be due to decreased field strength per unit area due to increased
linear platter speed in the center tracks, thus also decreasing
magnetic field strength per unit area. Depending on the drive
electronics, this would cause a greater percentage of LSE at either end
of the drive, exactly what one sees empirically.

Hmm... .
from the permanent magnets used in the motor spinning the disk(s) and the 'voice coil' head actuators?

I've oftentimes been impressed at the strong magnetic pulls when using a ferrous material such as a screwdriver or quarter in proximity to a HDD assembly?

Given the minute magnetic bit field strength of data, being constantly subjected to a strong magnetic field, I wonder how this affects the reliability of recorded data?

In a parallel, I remember the powerful magnets on JBL speakers using Alnico-V alloy, these speakers had virtually no magnetic flux loss when you approached the magnet, yet at the 'gap' where the voice-coil moved in, the pull was phenomenal?
0 Votes
+ -
Robin assumes too much...
Narg 10th Mar 2010
Robin,

After so long in the industry, you'd think you'd understand the dynamics behind drive manufacturing.

First and foremost, space in king. This need to push drives to larger and larger capacities has created an industry that worries more about capacity and marketing than it does on security. That push for capacity has left the physics at such a low point in concern, that a few errors just don't bother most users. Add to that the drives are quite good at error detection and correction that overall, it's hardly a blip on the radar.

If you want secure and safe data, stick to SCSI. Of course you'll pay 4 to 5 times on price per gigabyte, but you'll have a much better drive for data security. DUH!

So, what do you want? Safe or cheap? The consumer made up your mind for you: CHEAP!
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Instead of SCSI . . .
R Harris 10th Mar 2010
You answer your own question. If SCSI costs 4x per GB - just buy 2x the
SATA and mirror your data - and you'll still save 50% over SCSI.

You are right that most users don't care about a few errors. Their
machines are so difficult and cantankerous they have no idea why they
have problems. Disk errors don't typically announce themselves as such,
so users have no idea.

Robin
0 Votes
+ -
Another 'mystery'
johnfenjackson@... 10th Mar 2010
The following regime suits me (at home).

1. For speed SSD.
2. For work in progress (availability) RAID 1 and synchronisation.
3. For security. Backup. Akasa Duodock and disk to disk copy. Be even better when it has USB 3.0.

I'd pay for a high quality solution but ...

A. 8 bay DROBO is dynamic RAID 5 and costs an arm and a leg. UK ?1077 without disks!!

B. A DELL T410 server sounds good, only costs ?600 ... but just one 2TB disk costs ?760 !!!!

C. ZFS would be nice ... but M$ and Apple don't want to do it ... maybe OPENSOLARIS and iSCSI will come good?

... not through the nose.

The problem is that the major vendors know what the I in RAID stands for - INEXPENSIVE. They don't want to do anything inexpensive.

Windows Home Server? Another box? Another OS? Why can't I buy a PC with 4/6/8 hot swap disks and have the OS do ... you know ... look after my data, already.

Anybody got an inexpensive solution?
0 Votes
+ -
Just bought a terabyte drive myself
Lovs2look 10th Mar 2010
and paid $AUS 170 for it. Saw a 2TB (and was seriously considering it...) for $AUS 250 ish, so the solution is move to Australia and get your IT bits and pieces much cheaper!
Also the latest DESKTOP PCs from Dell will support 6 SATA drives, add a RAID controller card and you have a sweet system with all the drives you need.
Good Luck!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
NZJester 10th Mar 2010
If the errors tend to occur more in the inner and outer areas of the disk, maybe the source is the drive head changing direction. I'm sure it would more oftern change direction on the inner and outer areas of the disk than it does in the middle area of the drive.
Maybe the change in direction causes a minute misalinement of the head due to acelleration forces.
After all if you are sending a head in one direction and suddnly tell it to go in the other direction those forces must have some affect on the head!
0 Votes
+ -
Misalignment
cpuwzd 10th Mar 2010
When the first disk drives were designed, they used linear motors to position the read-write heads radially. When this technology was adapted for low-cost consumer use, rotary stepping motors were substituted for these linear motors. Of necessity, the angle that the geometry of the head makes to the track tangent varies as a function of the track number. I wonder whether anyone has investigated whether this misalignment explains any of this track-number dependent failure mode.
0 Votes
+ -
Robin,

Thanks for bringing this up. Disk subsystem reliability models can be really hard to get your head around. The old circa 1998 reliability model were based based on datasheet-specified MTTF of each component, assuming component failures follow exponential distributions and that failures are independent. Models based on these assumptions, and that systems should be modeled using homogenous Poisson processes remain in common use today and are used by many vendors because they seem to be readily understood. Unfortunately they can underestimate the likelihood of failure by orders of magnitude.

John Elerath and Michael Pecht did some pretty good modelling of the impact of Latent Sector Errors in

?A Highly Accurate Method for Assessing Reliability of Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID) in IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 58, NO. 3, MARCH 2009", a copy of which can be found here

http://media.netapp.com/documents/rp-0046.pdf?

One of the takeaways from this is that disk scrubbing is probably good enough for smaller/lower duty cycle N+1 RAID configurations, though for enterprise class workloads, you'd really want N+2 or better.

Even declustered N+1 parity schemes still suffer from "lost writes" and LSE, especially at larger spindle sizes regardless of whether you're using "SATA/Slow/Cheap" or "FC/SCSI/Fast/Expensive" drives.

I'm proud of the work NetApp has done in this area, and I hope it serves to improve the reliability standards across the industry as a whole.

Regards
John Martin
Consulting Systems Engineer
NetApp Australia
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
John, link seems to be broken.
R Harris 10th Mar 2010
Love to see it.

Robin
0 Votes
+ -
Correct link by ...
johnfenjackson@... Updated - 11th Mar 2010
... removing the superfluous double quote at the end.

My guess is its a parity check of some sort wink
0 Votes
+ -
Disk manufacturers need to 'fess up.
terry flores Updated - 10th Mar 2010
The drive makers are quick to advertise space specs, but their quality in terms of performance and reliability have declined SIGNIFICANTLY, and nobody pays attention to it until they lose a lot of data through a drive failure.

Also, there isn't really as much innovation in data protection at the unit level compared to space and density enhancement. Error detection and correction is obviously not keeping up, and RAID is a particular victim of this trend. So, what is an IT engineer to do? We've actually moved to RAID1 for critical data, because of increasing poor R.A.M.P. stats on RAID5 and even RAID6 arrays.

The end result: drive makers like Seagate and Hitachi are getting more "negative press" from their product performance and reliability, but they don't seem to care. I don't consider ANY drive maker to have a QUALITY brand, and I wouldn't pay a premium for any brand based on current performance.
0 Votes
+ -
RAID-6 should be much better than RAID-1
JohnRMartin 10th Mar 2010
I'd be interested in your rationale behind choosing RAID-1 vs RAID-6 for reliability. Most of the math and academic research from field data that I've seen, indicates that RAID-6 is still an order of magnitude more reliable than even RAID-1 / RAID-10 (which can be thought of a a special case of RAID-5 for reliability purposes as they are all N+1 resiliency architectures.)

As far as "fessing up" the UER's and MTBFs are pretty well documented on the spec sheets that I've seen. From my perspective, the drive manufacturers do everything they can within the limits of what's physically and economically possible.

Disk drives are truly amazing pieces of technology, though they have their limits, this is where array vendors such as NetApp add value by mitigating the impact of these limits. An interesting side note is the most recently published quality metrics for enterprise storage arrays shows that perceived quality and reliability for all vendors has increased significantly over the last few years.

If you truly have "mission critical" requirements, even with a limited budget I'd strongly suggest you look at the entry level arrays from reputable vendors. The price may be significantly more than buying disk from your local discount store, but the benefits in most cases are worth the extra outlay.

Regards
John Martin
Consulting Systems Engineer
NetApp Australia.
0 Votes
+ -
(NT)
0 Votes
+ -
Awesome!
Win3.1 10th Mar 2010
Now THIS is the kind of article I'd LOVE to read more of! So
much better than the techarazzi articles.
0 Votes
+ -
SCSI Reliability
Joanne Lowery 10th Mar 2010
Several correspondants have stated SCSI and FC drives are more reliable in data readability. Apart from the interface capabilities (multichannel IO and simultaneous IO across multiple drives on a channel) why would the mechanism of the drive be more reliable?
The drives still use the same voice coil mechanism with its attendant tangential errors, and with the same traversing time latencies. Why are these drives then supposedly more rliable?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
yagijd 11th Mar 2010
Homo-polar generators which use 2 much larger counter rotating disks had mysterious magnetic field anomolies that caused the outer edges to set up a sympathetic vibration and resulting in material breakdown. It killed some technicians before the scientists figured it out. Now we make sure Toyota doesn't get into the HDD business.
0 Votes
+ -
So, okay...

I want the Windows page file to be reliable and also fast. Of course, there, no part of the disk I want to be not reliable. Or not fast. Actually, I probably could stand pagefile trouble if the Windows partition stays good.

MyDefrag thinks that the start of the disk is fastest.

Here's my current thinking, which is kinda academic since bad things happen when I try to resize or move XP partitions.

Partition one holds SEVERAL page files. I probably do this by creating several large dummy files, then creat page file, delete one dummy file, create another page file, repeat. Putting multiple page files on a volume is fiddly, but do-able. And why?

Partition two holds Windows and core applications and utilities, and is of a size to be archived to a single optical disk after compression and removal of page file and hibernation file. With XP and DVD, I'm using a 15 GB plus intended upgrade RAM size NTFS partition, because hibernation file is close to identical to size of RAM, which is what goes into it.

Partition three is documents, and can be mounted into one or more folders simultaneously on partition two, so it just looks like more space under "My Documents". It cean also be used for application data cache, such as the broswser. Or that might go onto partition one somewhere.

Why? Well, if the start of disk is the fast region, I want the page file to be there. And to be comfortably oversized; say 4 GB. But I expect to shuttle a lot between page file and Windows OS and application program files. So I want those close together. So, Windows files mainly at the start of partitiondtwo; swap usage initially at the end of partition one, just next door to two.

It may be appropriate indeed to use partition one alternately for cache space as well and to hold a partition-to-file backup of partition two, when that's done.

And that volume may as well be FAT32; the main catch is that that limits files to 4 GB anyway, but the image of partition would be split into several files.

What do you think?
0 Votes
+ -
Partitions are LOGICAL arrangements - and by doing so it makes it easier to place things along a single drive, but you still have the SAME read-write heads involved for all. Thus, if the OS is on one partition, and the data is on the last - the read-write heads have to move from one side of the platter to the other in order to read data.
It is MUCH easier - and safer overall - to have multiple hard drives and put the OS on one, the cache on another, the data on a third.

Lose the OS drive and your data is still intact. you could even have a 4th drive, mirror the OS drive to it every month, just unplug it so it does not use power till needed thus saves wear - and have a backup of the OS and all apps that way.
0 Votes
+ -
Use 2 HDDs?
lehnerus2000 11th Mar 2010
Would using 2 drives fix that problem?

Put your OS on 1 drive and your page file on the other.

lehnerus2000
0 Votes
+ -
These types of errors have been happening...
mikifinaz1@... 11th Mar 2010
since hard drives where the size of a large refrigerator.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
dband@... 16th Mar 2010
Robin, buy bigger drives. 10 drives?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
yarinsiz Updated - 16th Apr 2011
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli sohbet sesli chat
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
MACKENZI 11th Sep
I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate! nccma cooler
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
PEARLINEI 12th Sep
I used to be more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this glorious read!! I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post. this thread is amazing i like your work and i appreciate you that you have share a useful stuff thanks for sharing the i shop abatwa
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
RHIANNONA 13th Sep
I used to be more than happy to seek out this internet-site.I wanted to thanks in your time for this glorious read!! I positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.Bookmarking now thanks please consider a follow up post. power sa shop
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
SATURNINA 14th Sep
I think the representation of this article is actually superb one. This is my first visit to your site. Thanks a lot and keep sharing the information. Keep updating the information for all of us. Thanks ZDNet Government was launched as the brand's first industry vertical, with a mission to cater to IT professionals in the public secto I agree with your post. However, do you have any sources I can cite for my paper wheel car com bury
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
TOCCAR 25th Sep
Well welcome, hopefully you can become a vital member of the community and really help to push far ahead of google. Which Im sure the development team would love. This will of course earn you alot points too and get you on the leaders board. z d n e t t h a n k Im not sure i come to an agreement with you on every level, howevor it absolutely was a good posting, many thanks for taking the time to put up your ideas.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
MCKNIGH 26th Sep
Thanks nice info z d n e t I really liked your current article write more..let me add you to its favorite The articles you have on zdnet s i t e are always so enjoyable to read. Good work and I bookmarked it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The disk error mystery
FAULKNE 13th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix