Re: SCSI vs SATA - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date
Msg-id 1175807611.9839.120.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("James Mansion" <james@mansionfamily.plus.com>)
Responses Re: SCSI vs SATA  (david@lang.hm)
Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("James Mansion" <james@mansionfamily.plus.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:30, James Mansion wrote:
> >Server drives are generally more tolerant of higher temperatures.  I.e.
> >the failure rate for consumer and server class HDs may be about the same
> >at 40 degrees C, but by the time the internal case temps get up to 60-70
> >degrees C, the consumer grade drives will likely be failing at a much
> >higher rate, whether they're working hard or not.
>
> Can you cite any statistical evidence for this?

Logic?

Mechanical devices have decreasing MTBF when run in hotter environments,
often at non-linear rates.

Server class drives are designed with a longer lifespan in mind.

Server class hard drives are rated at higher temperatures than desktop
drives.

Google can supply any numbers to fill those facts in, but I found a
dozen or so data sheets for various enterprise versus desktop drives in
a matter of minutes.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Alex Deucher"
Date:
Subject: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering
Next
From: Erik Jones
Date:
Subject: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering