Re: SCSI vs SATA - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ron
Subject Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date
Msg-id E1HZeyl-0000cI-NU@elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SCSI vs SATA  (david@lang.hm)
Responses Re: SCSI vs SATA  (david@lang.hm)
Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>)
List pgsql-performance
At 10:07 PM 4/5/2007, david@lang.hm wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>>Server class drives are designed with a longer lifespan in mind.
>>
>>Server class hard drives are rated at higher temperatures than desktop
>>drives.
>
>these two I question.
>
>David Lang
Both statements are the literal truth.  Not that I would suggest
abusing your server class HDs just because they are designed to live
longer and in more demanding environments.

Overheating, nasty electrical phenomenon, and abusive physical shocks
will trash a server class HD almost as fast as it will a consumer grade one.

The big difference between the two is that a server class HD can sit
in a rack with literally 100's of its brothers around it, cranking
away on server class workloads 24x7 in a constant vibration
environment (fans, other HDs, NOC cooling systems) and be quite happy
while a consumer HD will suffer greatly shortened life and die a
horrible death in such a environment and under such use.


Ron


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Next
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA