Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC0C9FBD44 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:24:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75757-01 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:24:04 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net (vms046pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D199FBDD3 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:24:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([72.66.31.15]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JG2006Z7VVRN05A@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:23:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id E521E71204 for ; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:23:49 -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 AqVtMH1fOXTY for ; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E429B71451; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:23:48 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA In-reply-to: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20070406132345.GE4374@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: <1175807611.9839.120.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <20070406113816.GC4374@mathom.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/162 X-Sequence-Number: 24039 On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 08:49:08AM -0400, Ron wrote: >Not quite. Each of our professional experiences is +also+ >statistical evidence. Even if it is a personally skewed sample. I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. I think the one you're looking for is "anecdotal". >My experience supports the hypothesis that spending slightly more for >quality and treating HDs better is worth it. >Does that mean one of us is right and the other wrong? Nope. Just >that =in my experience= it does make a difference. Well, without real numbers to back it up, it doesn't mean much in the face of studies that include real numbers. Humans are, in general, exceptionally lousy at assessing probabilities. There's a very real tendency to exaggerate evidence that supports our preconceptions and discount evidence that contradicts them. Maybe you're immune to that. Personally, I tend to simply assume that anecdotal evidence isn't very useful. This is why having some large scale independent studies is valuable. The manufacturer's studies are obviously biased, and it's good to have some basis for decision making other than "logic" (the classic "proof by 'it stands to reason'"), marketing, or "I paid more for it" ("so it's better whether it's better or not"). Mike Stone