From: | Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Date: | 2007-04-06 12:46:11 |
Message-ID: | 46164113.9060305@3times25.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Michael Stone wrote:
> 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.
Good point. Folks must realize that carriers handle computer hardware
the same way they handle a box of marshmallows or ball bearings.. A box
is a box is a box.
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2007-04-06 12:49:08 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Previous Message | Geoffrey | 2007-04-06 12:43:36 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |