Re: SCSI vs SATA

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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