Re: SCSI vs SATA - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Peter Kovacs
Subject Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date
Msg-id b6e8f2e80704040630s5a9b1848g14beedd96f2b22f9@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SCSI vs SATA  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: SCSI vs SATA
Re: SCSI vs SATA
List pgsql-performance
But if an individual disk fails in a disk array, sooner than later you
would want to purchase a new fitting disk, walk/drive to the location
of the disk array, replace the broken disk in the array and activate
the new disk. Is this correct?

Thanks
Peter

On 4/4/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Andreas Kostyrka escribió:
> > * Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com> [070404 14:40]:
> > > This may be a silly question but: will not 3 times as many disk drives
> > > mean 3 times higher probability for disk failure? Also rumor has it
> > > that SATA drives are more prone to fail than SCSI drivers. More
> > > failures will result, in turn, in more administration costs.
> > Actually, the newest research papers show that all discs (be it
> > desktops, or highend SCSI) have basically the same failure statistics.
> >
> > But yes, having 3 times the discs will increase the fault probability.
>
> ... of individual disks, which is quite different from failure of a disk
> array (in case there is one).
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
>

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA