From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
Cc: | Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Date: | 2007-04-06 06:00:15 |
Message-ID: | 28551.1175839215@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
david(at)lang(dot)hm writes:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Ron wrote:
>> Yep. Folks should google "bath tub curve of statistical failure" or similar.
>> Basically, always burn in your drives for at least 1/2 a day before using
>> them in a production or mission critical role.
> for this and your first point, please go and look at the google and cmu
> studies. unless the vendors did the burn-in before delivering the drives
> to the sites that installed them, there was no 'infant mortality' spike on
> the drives (both studies commented on this, they expected to find one)
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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-04-06 06:10:11 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Previous Message | david | 2007-04-06 05:53:46 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |