| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, "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 13:36:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20070404133620.GD8549@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Peter Kovacs escribió:
> 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?
Ideally you would have a spare disk to let the array controller replace
the broken one as soon as it breaks, but yeah, that would be more or
less the procedure. There is a way to defer the walk/drive until a more
convenient opportunity presents.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2007-04-04 13:38:40 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Peter Kovacs | 2007-04-04 13:30:00 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |