| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "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 15:50:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4613C954.8050203@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> 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...
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Andreas
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-04-04 15:59:28 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Andreas Kostyrka | 2007-04-04 15:43:05 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |