Re: SCSI vs SATA

From: Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>
To: Charles Sprickman <spork(at)bway(dot)net>
Cc: david(at)lang(dot)hm, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-06 23:17:55
Message-ID: 20070406231755.GA24498@andi-lap.la.revver.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

* Charles Sprickman <spork(at)bway(dot)net> [070407 00:49]:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >
> >>Based on experience I think that on average server drives are more
> >>reliable than consumer grade drives, and can take more punishment.
> >
> >this I am not sure about
>
> I think they should survey Tivo owners next time.
>
> Perfect stress-testing environment. Mine runs at over 50C most of the time, and it's writing 2 video streams 24/7. What more could you do to punish a drive? :)

Well, there is one thing, actually what my dreambox does ;)

-) read/write 2 streams at the same time. (which means quite a bit of
seeking under pressure)
-) and even worse, standby and sleep states. And powering up the drive
when needed.

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2007-04-06 23:24:37 Re: SCSI vs SATA
Previous Message david 2007-04-06 23:00:06 Re: SCSI vs SATA