From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Schnabel <schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |
Date: | 2009-05-22 15:08:09 |
Message-ID: | alpine.GSO.2.01.0905221057390.17833@westnet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Robert Schnabel wrote:
> No, the original drives I have work fine. The problem, as you point out, is
> that Seagate changed the firmware and made it so that you cannot flash it to
> a different version.
The subtle point here is that whether a drive has been out long enough to
have a stable firmware is very much a component of its overall quality and
reliability--regardless of whether the drive works fine in any one system
or not. The odds of you'll get a RAID compability breaking firmware
change in the first few months a drive is on the market are painfully
high.
You don't have to defend that it was the right decision for you, I was
just uncomfortable with the way you were extrapolating your experience to
provide a larger rule of thumb. Allocated hot spares and cold spares on
the shelf are both important, but for most people those should be a safety
net on top of making the safest hardware choice, rather than as a way to
allow taking excessive risks in what you buy.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-05-22 15:59:52 | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |
Previous Message | Robert Schnabel | 2009-05-22 13:38:13 | Re: raid10 hard disk choice |