Re: SCSI vs SATA

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-06 11:43:38
Message-ID: 20070406114336.GD4374@mathom.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:00:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>It seems hard to believe that the vendors themselves wouldn't burn in
>the drives for half a day, if that's all it takes to eliminate a large
>fraction of infant mortality. The savings in return processing and
>customer goodwill would surely justify the electricity they'd use.

Wouldn't help if the reason for the infant mortality is bad handling
between the factory and the rack. One thing that I did question in the
CMU study was the lack of infant mortality--I've definately observed it,
but it might just be that my UPS guy is clumsier than theirs.

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2007-04-06 12:31:51 Re: SCSI vs SATA
Previous Message Michael Stone 2007-04-06 11:38:17 Re: SCSI vs SATA