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


From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: david(at)lang(dot)hm
Cc: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Date: 2007-04-08 03:20:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
>>> I believe that the biggest cause for data loss from people useing the 
>>> 'cheap' drives is due to the fact that one 'cheap' drive holds the 
>>> capacity of 5 or so 'expensive' drives, and since people don't 
>>> realize this they don't realize that the time to rebuild the failed 
>>> drive onto a hot-spare is correspondingly longer.
>> Commodity HDs get 1 year warranties for the same reason enterprise HDs 
>> get 5+ year warranties: the vendor's confidence that they are not 
>> going to lose money honoring the warranty in question.
> at least seagate gives 5 year warranties on their consumer drives.

Hitachi 3 years
Maxtor  3 years
Samsung 1-3 years depending on drive (but who buys samsung drives)
Seagate 5 years (300 Gig, 7200 RPM perpendicular recording... 89 bucks)
Western Digital 3-5 years depending on drive

Joshua D. Drake


       === 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

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:
PostgreSQL Replication:

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: markDate: 2007-04-08 07:49:54
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
Previous:From: davidDate: 2007-04-08 03:13:51
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA

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