Message-ID: <437B54A9.5070104@commandprompt.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:47:53 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D01995F7B@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com>
	<33c6269f0511152115v1a34ab81j30f1f5df5a6c6956@mail.gmail.com>
	<437B3B18.1040509@commandprompt.com> <437B4773.1040404@boreham.org>
In-Reply-To: <437B4773.1040404@boreham.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>
> I guess I've never bought into the vendor story that there are
> two reliability grades. Why would they bother making two
> different kinds of bearing, motor etc ? Seems like it's more
> likely an excuse to justify higher prices. In my experience the
> expensive SCSI drives I own break frequently while the cheapo
> desktop drives just keep chunking along (modulo certain products
> that have a specific known reliability problem).

I don't know if the reliability grade is true or not but what I can tell
you is that I have scsi drives that are 5+ years old that still work without
issue.

I have never had an IDE drive last longer than 3 years (when used in 
production).

That being said, so what. That is what raid is for. You loose a drive 
and hot swap
it back in. Heck keep a hotspare in the trays.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> I'd expect that a larger number of hotter drives will give a less 
> reliable
> system than a smaller number of cooler ones.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>               http://archives.postgresql.org