Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-06 12:46:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:00:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems hard to believe that the vendors themselves wouldn't burn in
>> the drives for half a day, if that's all it takes to eliminate a large
>> fraction of infant mortality.  The savings in return processing and
>> customer goodwill would surely justify the electricity they'd use.
> Wouldn't help if the reason for the infant mortality is bad handling 
> between the factory and the rack. One thing that I did question in the 
> CMU study was the lack of infant mortality--I've definately observed it, 
> but it might just be that my UPS guy is clumsier than theirs.

Good point.  Folks must realize that carriers handle computer hardware 
the same way they handle a box of marshmallows or ball bearings..  A box 
is a box is a box.

Until later, Geoffrey

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  - Benjamin Franklin

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: RonDate: 2007-04-06 12:49:08
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Previous:From: GeoffreyDate: 2007-04-06 12:43:36
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group