| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "James Mansion" <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "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 05:32:26 |
| Message-ID: | 19221.1175751146@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"James Mansion" <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> writes:
>> Right --- the point is not the interface, but whether the drive is built
>> for reliability or to hit a low price point.
> Personally I take the marketing mublings about the enterprise drives
> with a pinch of salt. The low-price drives HAVE TO be reliable too,
> because a non-negligible failure rate will result in returns processing
> costs that destroy a very thin margin.
Reliability is relative. Server-grade drives are built to be beat upon
24x7x365 for the length of their warranty period. Consumer-grade drives
are built to be beat upon a few hours a day, a few days a week, for the
length of their warranty period. Even if the warranties mention the
same number of years, there is a huge difference here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2007-04-05 07:07:11 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | James Mansion | 2007-04-05 05:25:05 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |