Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: 2005-11-16 17:06:25
Message-ID: 1132160785.3582.60.camel@state.g2switchworks.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 08:51, David Boreham wrote:
>  >Spend a fortune on dual core CPUs and then buy crappy disks...  I bet
>  >for most applications this system will be IO bound, and you will see a
>  >nice lot of drive failures in the first year of operation with
>  >consumer grade drives.
> 
> I guess I've never bought into the vendor story that there are
> two reliability grades. Why would they bother making two
> different kinds of bearing, motor etc ? Seems like it's more
> likely an excuse to justify higher prices. In my experience the
> expensive SCSI drives I own break frequently while the cheapo
> desktop drives just keep chunking along (modulo certain products
> that have a specific known reliability problem).
> 
> I'd expect that a larger number of hotter drives will give a less reliable
> system than a smaller number of cooler ones.

My experience has mirrored this.

Anyone remember back when HP made their SureStore drives?  We built 8
drive RAID arrays to ship to customer sites, pre-filled with data.  Not
a single one arrived fully operational.  The failure rate on those
drives was something like 60% in the first year, and HP quit making hard
drives because of it.

Those were SCSI Server class drives, supposedly built to last 5 years.

OTOH, I remember putting a pair of 60 Gig IDEs into a server that had
lots of ventilation and fans and such, and having no problems
whatsoever.

There was a big commercial EMC style array in the hosting center at the
same place that had something like a 16 wide by 16 tall array of IDE
drives for storing pdf / tiff stuff on it, and we had at least one
failure a month in it.  Of course, that's 256 drives, so you're gonna
have failures, and it was configured with a spare on every other row or
some such.  We just had a big box of hard drives and it was smart enough
to rebuild automagically when you put a new one in, so the maintenance
wasn't really that bad.  The performance was quite impressive too.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Alex TurnerDate: 2005-11-16 17:08:37
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases
Previous:From: Welty, RichardDate: 2005-11-16 16:07:00
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group