| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
| Cc: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, jason(at)ohloh(dot)net, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-06 02:07:44 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0704051905520.28411@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:30, James Mansion wrote:
>>> Server drives are generally more tolerant of higher temperatures. I.e.
>>> the failure rate for consumer and server class HDs may be about the same
>>> at 40 degrees C, but by the time the internal case temps get up to 60-70
>>> degrees C, the consumer grade drives will likely be failing at a much
>>> higher rate, whether they're working hard or not.
>>
>> Can you cite any statistical evidence for this?
>
> Logic?
>
> Mechanical devices have decreasing MTBF when run in hotter environments,
> often at non-linear rates.
this I will agree with.
> Server class drives are designed with a longer lifespan in mind.
>
> Server class hard drives are rated at higher temperatures than desktop
> drives.
these two I question.
David Lang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron | 2007-04-06 03:19:04 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | david | 2007-04-06 01:47:12 | Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering |