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

Re: raid10 hard disk choice

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Robert Schnabel <schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: raid10 hard disk choice
Date: 2009-05-22 15:08:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Robert Schnabel wrote:

> No, the original drives I have work fine.  The problem, as you point out, is 
> that Seagate changed the firmware and made it so that you cannot flash it to 
> a different version.

The subtle point here is that whether a drive has been out long enough to 
have a stable firmware is very much a component of its overall quality and 
reliability--regardless of whether the drive works fine in any one system 
or not.  The odds of you'll get a RAID compability breaking firmware 
change in the first few months a drive is on the market are painfully 

You don't have to defend that it was the right decision for you, I was 
just uncomfortable with the way you were extrapolating your experience to 
provide a larger rule of thumb.  Allocated hot spares and cold spares on 
the shelf are both important, but for most people those should be a safety 
net on top of making the safest hardware choice, rather than as a way to 
allow taking excessive risks in what you buy.

* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com Baltimore, MD

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-05-22 15:59:52
Subject: Re: raid10 hard disk choice
Previous:From: Robert SchnabelDate: 2009-05-22 13:38:13
Subject: Re: raid10 hard disk choice

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