| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-04 13:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20070404131920.GA8549@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andreas Kostyrka escribió:
> * Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Kovacs | 2007-04-04 13:30:00 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Dimitri | 2007-04-04 12:46:54 | Equivalents in PostgreSQL of MySQL's "ENGINE=MEMORY" "MAX_ROWS=1000" |