Re: SCSI vs SATA

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Ron wrote:

> Bear in mind that Google was and is notorious for pushing their environmental
> factors to the limit while using the cheapest "PoS" HW they can get their
> hands on.
> Let's just say I'm fairly sure every piece of HW they were using for those
> studies was operating outside of manufacturer's suggested specifications.

Ron, please go read both the studies. unless you want to say that every
orginization the CMU picked to study also abused their hardware as
well....

> Under such conditions the environmental factors are so deleterious that they
> swamp any other effect.
>
> OTOH, I've spent my career being as careful as possible to as much as
> possible run HW within manufacturer's suggested specifications.
> I've been chided for it over the years... ...usually by folks who "save"
> money by buying commodity HDs for big RAID farms in NOCs or push their
> environmental envelope or push their usage envelope or ... ...and then act
> surprised when they have so much more down time and HW replacements than I
> do.
>
> All I can tell you is that I've gotten to eat my holiday dinner far more
> often than than my counterparts who push it in that fashion.
>
> OTOH, there are crises like the Power Outage of 2003 in the NE USA where some
> places had such Bad Things happen that it simply doesn't matter what you
> bought
> (power dies, generator cuts in, power comes on, but AC units crash,
> temperatures shoot up so fast that by the time everything is re-shutdown it's
> in the 100F range in the NOC. Lot's 'O Stuff dies on the spot + spend next 6
> months having HW failures at +considerably+ higher rates than historical
> norms. Ick..)
>
> IME, it really does make a difference =if you pay attention to the
> difference in the first place=.
> If you treat everything equally poorly, then you should not be surprised when
> everything acts equally poorly.
>
> But hey, YMMV.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron Peacetree
>
>