X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36C0D7D3D
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:00:12 -0400 (AST)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 26145-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:00:10 +0000 (GMT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from toad.mtbrook.bozemanpass.com (toad.mtbrook.bozemanpass.com
	[69.145.82.195])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E54FDB84A
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:00:09 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [69.145.82.253] (unknown [69.145.82.253])
	by toad.mtbrook.bozemanpass.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8E511027B
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:00:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <437B578C.4000309@boreham.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:00:12 -0700
From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
References: <200511161550.jAGFoCY09049@candle.pha.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <200511161550.jAGFoCY09049@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------020409050605040700020305"
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001,
	HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200511/282
X-Sequence-Number: 15539

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020409050605040700020305
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>
>I suggest you read this on the difference between enterprise/SCSI and
>desktop/IDE drives:
>
>	http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
>
>  
>
This is exactly the kind of vendor propaganda I was talking about
and it proves my point quite well : that there's nothing specific relating
to reliability that is different between SCSI and SATA drives cited in 
that paper.
It does have a bunch of FUD such as 'oh yeah we do a lot more
drive characterization during manufacturing'.




--------------020409050605040700020305
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid200511161550.jAGFoCY09049@candle.pha.pa.us"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
I suggest you read this on the difference between enterprise/SCSI and
desktop/IDE drives:

	<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf">http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf</a>

  </pre>
</blockquote>
This is exactly the kind of vendor propaganda I was talking about<br>
and it proves my point quite well : that there's nothing specific
relating<br>
to reliability that is different between SCSI and SATA drives cited in
that paper.<br>
It does have a bunch of FUD such as 'oh yeah we do a lot more<br>
drive characterization during manufacturing'.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------020409050605040700020305--