| From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-04 16:58:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20070404165803.GB3943@mark.mielke.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:50:44AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA
> >discs, that might have been bad luck.
> Probably bad luck. I find that SCSI is very reliable, but I don't find
> it any more reliable than SATA. That is assuming correct ventilation etc...
Perhaps a basic question - but why does the interface matter? :-)
I find the subject interesting to read about - but I am having trouble
understanding why SATAII is technically superior or inferior to SCSI as
an interface, in any place that counts.
Is the opinion being expressed that manufacturers who have decided to
move to SATAII are not designing for the enterprise market yes? I find
myself doubting this...
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Geoff Tolley | 2007-04-04 17:36:36 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-04 16:57:13 | Re: Can't drop tablespace or user after disk gone |