Message-ID: <46140B49.3060205@commandprompt.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:32:09 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070306)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
CC: mark@mark.mielke.cc, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org>,
	"jason@ohloh.net" <jason@ohloh.net>,
	Geoff Tolley <geoff@polimetrix.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
References: <200704042027.l34KRMI03358@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <200704042027.l34KRMI03358@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:50:44AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>> difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA
>>>> discs, that might have been bad luck.
>>> Probably bad luck. I find that SCSI is very reliable, but I don't find 
>>> it any more reliable than SATA. That is assuming correct ventilation etc...
>> Perhaps a basic question - but why does the interface matter? :-)
>>
>> I find the subject interesting to read about - but I am having trouble
>> understanding why SATAII is technically superior or inferior to SCSI as
>> an interface, in any place that counts.
> 
> You should probably read this to learn the difference between desktop
> and enterprise-level drives:
> 
>   http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf

Problem is :), you can purchase SATA Enterprise Drives.

Joshua D. Drake


-- 

       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/