Thread: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
This is exactly the kind of vendor propaganda I was talking aboutI suggest you read this on the difference between enterprise/SCSI and desktop/IDE drives: http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
and it proves my point quite well : that there's nothing specific relating
to reliability that is different between SCSI and SATA drives cited in that paper.
It does have a bunch of FUD such as 'oh yeah we do a lot more
drive characterization during manufacturing'.
Just pick up a SCSI drive and a consumer ATA drive. Feel their weight. You don't have to look inside to tell the difference. Alex On 11/16/05, David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org> wrote: > > > I suggest you read this on the difference between enterprise/SCSI and > desktop/IDE drives: > > http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf > > > This is exactly the kind of vendor propaganda I was talking about > and it proves my point quite well : that there's nothing specific relating > to reliability that is different between SCSI and SATA drives cited in that > paper. > It does have a bunch of FUD such as 'oh yeah we do a lot more > drive characterization during manufacturing'. > > > >
Alex Turner wrote: >Just pick up a SCSI drive and a consumer ATA drive. > >Feel their weight. > > Not sure I get your point. We would want the lighter one, all things being equal, right ? (lower shipping costs, less likely to break when dropped on the floor....)
Alan Stange wrote: >> Not sure I get your point. We would want the lighter one, >> all things being equal, right ? (lower shipping costs, less likely >> to break when dropped on the floor....) > > Why would the lighter one be less likely to break when dropped on the > floor? They'd have less kinetic energy upon impact.
David Boreham wrote: > Alex Turner wrote: > >> Just pick up a SCSI drive and a consumer ATA drive. >> >> Feel their weight. >> >> > Not sure I get your point. We would want the lighter one, > all things being equal, right ? (lower shipping costs, less likely > to break when dropped on the floor....) Why would the lighter one be less likely to break when dropped on the floor? -- Alan
On 17-Nov-05, at 2:50 PM, Alex Turner wrote: > Just pick up a SCSI drive and a consumer ATA drive. > > Feel their weight. > > You don't have to look inside to tell the difference. At one point stereo manufacturers put weights in the case just to make them heavier. The older ones weighed more and the consumer liked heavy stereos. Be careful what you measure. Dave > > Alex > > On 11/16/05, David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org> wrote: >> >> >> I suggest you read this on the difference between enterprise/SCSI >> and >> desktop/IDE drives: >> >> http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/ >> D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf >> >> >> This is exactly the kind of vendor propaganda I was talking about >> and it proves my point quite well : that there's nothing specific >> relating >> to reliability that is different between SCSI and SATA drives >> cited in that >> paper. >> It does have a bunch of FUD such as 'oh yeah we do a lot more >> drive characterization during manufacturing'. >> >> >> >> > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >