Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B249FB541 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:43:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32064-01 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:43:45 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9459FB4A7 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:43:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([72.66.31.15]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JG200EZHR8S16A2@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:43:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC42671204 for ; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id SMayabXAVXho for ; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5CA287144E; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:43:38 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA In-reply-to: <28551.1175839215@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20070406114336.GD4374@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 References: <19221.1175751146@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1175786370.9839.31.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <28551.1175839215@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/157 X-Sequence-Number: 24034 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. Mike Stone