| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 20:27:22 |
| Message-ID: | 200704042027.l34KRMI03358@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
> 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.
You should probably read this to learn the difference between desktop
and enterprise-level drives:
http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-04-04 20:32:09 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2007-04-04 19:38:28 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |