| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, jason(at)ohloh(dot)net, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-05 21:13:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1175807611.9839.120.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:30, James Mansion wrote:
> >Server drives are generally more tolerant of higher temperatures. I.e.
> >the failure rate for consumer and server class HDs may be about the same
> >at 40 degrees C, but by the time the internal case temps get up to 60-70
> >degrees C, the consumer grade drives will likely be failing at a much
> >higher rate, whether they're working hard or not.
>
> Can you cite any statistical evidence for this?
Logic?
Mechanical devices have decreasing MTBF when run in hotter environments,
often at non-linear rates.
Server class drives are designed with a longer lifespan in mind.
Server class hard drives are rated at higher temperatures than desktop
drives.
Google can supply any numbers to fill those facts in, but I found a
dozen or so data sheets for various enterprise versus desktop drives in
a matter of minutes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Jones | 2007-04-05 21:39:12 | Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering |
| Previous Message | Alex Deucher | 2007-04-05 21:06:09 | Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering |