From: Michael Stone
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20070406210228.GJ4374@mathom.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

SCSI vs SATA  ("", )
 Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
  Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Geoff Tolley, )
    Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
     Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Peter Kovacs", )
      Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Andreas Kostyrka, )
       Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Alvaro Herrera, )
        Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Peter Kovacs", )
         Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Alvaro Herrera, )
          Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Andreas Kostyrka, )
         Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
       Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Rod Taylor, )
     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Geoff Tolley, )
    Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("", )
     Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
      Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Stefan Kaltenbrunner, )
       Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
        Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Stefan Kaltenbrunner, )
         Can't drop tablespace or user after disk gone  ("Craig A. James", )
          Re: Can't drop tablespace or user after disk gone  (Tom Lane, )
       Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("James Mansion", )
      Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Andreas Kostyrka, )
       Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
        Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
         Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Geoff Tolley, )
         Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Bruce Momjian, )
          Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
           Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Bruce Momjian, )
            Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("James Mansion", )
             Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Tom Lane, )
              Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Scott Marlowe, )
               Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                 Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Tom Lane, )
                  Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Greg Smith, )
                   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Tom Lane, )
                    Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Geoffrey, )
                  Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Michael Stone, )
                   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Geoffrey, )
               Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("James Mansion", )
                Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Scott Marlowe, )
                 Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                  Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                    Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Richard Troy, )
                    Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                      Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                       Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Mark Kirkwood, )
                   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Michael Stone, )
                    Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Michael Stone, )
                      Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                       Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Michael Stone, )
                        Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                         Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Michael Stone, )
                 Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Greg Smith, )
                  Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Scott Marlowe, )
                   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Greg Smith, )
                   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                    Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Charles Sprickman, )
                     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Andreas Kostyrka, )
                   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Bruce Momjian, )
                    Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                      Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                       Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                        Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
                        Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
                       Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
                 Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("James Mansion", )
           Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Carlos Moreno, )
            Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("", )
             Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Arjen van der Meijden, )
             Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Heikki Linnakangas, )
             Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
              Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("", )
               Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
               Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Alex Deucher", )
               Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Arjen van der Meijden, )
               Re: SCSI vs SATA  (, )
     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Geoff Tolley, )
     Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Scott Marlowe, )
      Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Jeff Frost, )
       Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("", )
 Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("Brian A. Seklecki", )
 Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron Mayer, )
 Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Ron, )
 Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Arjen van der Meijden, )
  Re: SCSI vs SATA  ("", )
   Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Arjen van der Meijden, )

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 03:37:08PM -0400, Ron wrote:
>>>studies.  I respect that.  Unfortunately the RW is too fast moving
>>>and too messy to wait for a laboratory style study to be completed
>>>before we are called on to make professional decisions on most
>>>issues we face within our work
>>>IME I have to serve my customers in a timely fashion that for the
>>>most part prohibits me from waiting for the perfect experiment's outcome.
>>
>>Which is what distinguishes your field from a field such as
>>engineering or medicine, and which is why waving the term
>>"malpractice" around is just plain silly.
>
>Ok, since you know I am an engineer that crossed a professional line
>in terms of insult.  That finishes this conversation.

Actually, I don't know what you are. I obviously should have been more
specific that the field I was refering to is computer systems
integration, which isn't a licensed engineering profession in any
jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

>...and you know very well that the use of the term "malpractice" was
>not in the legal sense but in the strict dictionary sense: "mal,
>meaning bad" "practice, meaning "professional practice."

That's the literal definition or etymology; the dictionary definition
will generally include terms like "negligence", "established rules",
etc., implying that there is an established, objective standard. I just
don't think that hard disk choice (or anything else about designing a
hardware & software system) can be argued to have an established
standard best practice. Heck, you probably can't even say "I did that
sucessfully last year, we can just implement the same solution" because
in this industry you probably couldn't buy the same parts (exagerrating
only somewhat).

>>  And claiming to have to wait for perfection is a red herring. Did
>>you record the numbers of disks involved (failed & nonfailed), the
>>models, the environmental conditions, the power on hours, etc.?
>>That's what would distinguish anecdote from systematic study.
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact I =do= keep such maintenance records for
>operations centers I've been responsible for.

Great! If you presented those numbers along with some context the data
could be assessed to form some kind of rational conclusion. But to
remind you of what you'd offered up to the time I suggested that you
were offering anecdotal evidence in response to a request for
statistical evidence:

>OTOH, I've spent my career being as careful as possible to as much as
>possible run HW within manufacturer's suggested specifications. I've
>been chided for it over the years... ...usually by folks who "save"
>money by buying commodity HDs for big RAID farms in NOCs or push their
>environmental envelope or push their usage envelope or ... ...and then
>act surprised when they have so much more down time and HW replacements
>than I do.
>
>All I can tell you is that I've gotten to eat my holiday dinner far more
>often than than my counterparts who push it in that fashion.

I don't know how to describe that other than as anecdotal. You seem to
be interpreting the term "anecdotal" as pejorative rather than
descriptive. It's not anecdotal because I question your ability or any
other such personal factor, it's anecdotal because if your answer to the
question is "in my professional opinion, A" and someone else says "in my
professional opinion, !A", we really haven't gotten any hard data to
synthesize a rational opinion.

Mike Stone


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
From: Tilo Buschmann
Date:
Subject: fast DISTINCT or EXIST