| From: | "Peter Kovacs" <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andreas Kostyrka" <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, "Peter Kovacs" <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, "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 13:30:00 |
| Message-ID: | b6e8f2e80704040630s5a9b1848g14beedd96f2b22f9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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?
Thanks
Peter
On 4/4/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Andreas Kostyrka escribió:
> > * Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com> [070404 14:40]:
> > > This may be a silly question but: will not 3 times as many disk drives
> > > mean 3 times higher probability for disk failure? Also rumor has it
> > > that SATA drives are more prone to fail than SCSI drivers. More
> > > failures will result, in turn, in more administration costs.
> > Actually, the newest research papers show that all discs (be it
> > desktops, or highend SCSI) have basically the same failure statistics.
> >
> > But yes, having 3 times the discs will increase the fault probability.
>
> ... of individual disks, which is quite different from failure of a disk
> array (in case there is one).
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-04-04 13:36:20 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-04-04 13:19:20 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |