Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8982E650EFC for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:27:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61341-01 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:27:13 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6AA650E99 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:27:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from commandprompt.com (227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net [209.222.54.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5PIT1Oj007653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:29:04 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:27:04 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Hardware vs Software RAID Message-ID: <20080625182704.GN37604@commandprompt.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <48622660.4050403@careerjunction.co.za> <1214409331.28228.8.camel@jd-laptop> <20080625180029.GM37604@commandprompt.com> <486242F4.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <486242F4.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200806/150 X-Sequence-Number: 30500 On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 01:07:25PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > It doesn't have to be free software to cut that way. I've actually > found the free software to waste less of my time. No question. But one of the unfortunate facts of the no-charge-for-licenses world is that many people expect the systems to be _really free_. It appears that some people think, because they've already paid $smallfortune for a license, it's therefore ok to pay another amount in operation costs and experts to run the system. Free systems, for some reason, are expected also magically to run themselves. This tendency is getting better, but hasn't gone away. It's partly because the budget for the administrators is often buried in the overall large system budget, so nobody balks when there's a big figure attached there. When you present a budget for "free software" that includes the cost of a few administrators, the accounting people want to know why the free software costs so much. > If you depend on your systems, though, you should never deploy any > change, no matter how innocuous it seems, without testing. I agree completely. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/