| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-04 16:04:19 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0704040900370.15903@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> But if an individual disk fails in a disk array, sooner than later you
> would want to purchase a new fitting disk, walk/drive to the location
> of the disk array, replace the broken disk in the array and activate
> the new disk. Is this correct?
correct, but more drives also give you the chance to do multiple parity
arrays so that you can loose more drives before you loose data. see the
tread titled 'Sunfire X4500 recommendations' for some stats on how likely
you are to loose your data in the face of multiple drive failures.
you can actually get much better reliability then RAID 10
David Lang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig A. James | 2007-04-04 16:43:40 | Can't drop tablespace or user after disk gone |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-04-04 15:59:28 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |