Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: 2005-11-18 12:58:43
Message-ID: 012EB91C-667A-495F-B4F2-F14EE7162ABA@fastcrypt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


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(at)boreham(dot)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
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2005-11-18 13:00:17 Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Previous Message Luke Lonergan 2005-11-18 06:07:54 Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (