| From: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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 13:48:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20070404134839.GI20893@andi-lap.la.revver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
* Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [070404 15:42]:
> Peter Kovacs escribió:
> > But if an individual disk fails in a disk array, sooner than later you
> > would want to purchase a new fitting disk, walk/drive to the location
> > of the disk array, replace the broken disk in the array and activate
> > the new disk. Is this correct?
>
> Ideally you would have a spare disk to let the array controller replace
> the broken one as soon as it breaks, but yeah, that would be more or
Well, no matter what, you need to test this procedure. I'd expect in
many cases the disc io during the rebuild of the array to that much
slower that the database server won't be able to cope with the load.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexandre Vasconcelos | 2007-04-04 14:03:49 | Large objetcs performance |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2007-04-04 13:38:40 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |