From: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Charles Sprickman <spork(at)bway(dot)net> |
Cc: | david(at)lang(dot)hm, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Date: | 2007-04-06 23:17:55 |
Message-ID: | 20070406231755.GA24498@andi-lap.la.revver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
* Charles Sprickman <spork(at)bway(dot)net> [070407 00:49]:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >
> >>Based on experience I think that on average server drives are more
> >>reliable than consumer grade drives, and can take more punishment.
> >
> >this I am not sure about
>
> I think they should survey Tivo owners next time.
>
> Perfect stress-testing environment. Mine runs at over 50C most of the time, and it's writing 2 video streams 24/7. What more could you do to punish a drive? :)
Well, there is one thing, actually what my dreambox does ;)
-) read/write 2 streams at the same time. (which means quite a bit of
seeking under pressure)
-) and even worse, standby and sleep states. And powering up the drive
when needed.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2007-04-06 23:24:37 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Previous Message | david | 2007-04-06 23:00:06 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |