Re: SCSI vs SATA - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date
Msg-id 28551.1175839215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SCSI vs SATA  (david@lang.hm)
Responses Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>)
List pgsql-performance
david@lang.hm writes:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Ron wrote:
>> Yep.  Folks should google "bath tub curve of statistical failure" or similar.
>> Basically, always burn in your drives for at least 1/2 a day before using
>> them in a production or mission critical role.

> for this and your first point, please go and look at the google and cmu
> studies. unless the vendors did the burn-in before delivering the drives
> to the sites that installed them, there was no 'infant mortality' spike on
> the drives (both studies commented on this, they expected to find one)

It seems hard to believe that the vendors themselves wouldn't burn in
the drives for half a day, if that's all it takes to eliminate a large
fraction of infant mortality.  The savings in return processing and
customer goodwill would surely justify the electricity they'd use.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jonathan Ellis"
Date:
Subject: Re: Premature view materialization in 8.2?
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA