| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Date: | 2005-11-16 15:47:53 |
| Message-ID: | 437B54A9.5070104@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
> I guess I've never bought into the vendor story that there are
> two reliability grades. Why would they bother making two
> different kinds of bearing, motor etc ? Seems like it's more
> likely an excuse to justify higher prices. In my experience the
> expensive SCSI drives I own break frequently while the cheapo
> desktop drives just keep chunking along (modulo certain products
> that have a specific known reliability problem).
I don't know if the reliability grade is true or not but what I can tell
you is that I have scsi drives that are 5+ years old that still work without
issue.
I have never had an IDE drive last longer than 3 years (when used in
production).
That being said, so what. That is what raid is for. You loose a drive
and hot swap
it back in. Heck keep a hotspare in the trays.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> I'd expect that a larger number of hotter drives will give a less
> reliable
> system than a smaller number of cooler ones.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Boreham | 2005-11-16 16:00:12 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Previous Message | Douglas J. Trainor | 2005-11-16 15:45:15 | OT Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |