| From: | "James Mansion" <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <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: | 2007-04-05 05:25:05 |
| Message-ID: | HCEPKPMCAJLDGJIBCLGHMEMGHGAA.james@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>Right --- the point is not the interface, but whether the drive is built
>for reliability or to hit a low price point.
Personally I take the marketing mublings about the enterprise drives
with a pinch of salt. The low-price drives HAVE TO be reliable too,
because a non-negligible failure rate will result in returns processing
costs that destroy a very thin margin.
Granted, there was a move to very short warranties a while back,
but the trend has been for more realistic warranties again recently.
You can bet they don't do this unless the drives are generally pretty
good.
James
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007
12:48
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-05 05:32:26 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | jason@ohloh.net | 2007-04-04 23:42:21 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |