Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from
	<pgsql-performance-owner+M49484=pgsql-performance-ar@postgresql.org>)
	id 1UFz1M-00045y-Su for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org;
	Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:40:01 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from
	<pgsql-performance-owner+M49484=pgsql-performance-ar@postgresql.org>)
	id 1UFz1M-000105-8g for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org;
	Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:40:00 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david_list@boreham.org>) id 1UFz1L-000100-H9
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:39:59 +0000
Received: from server13-scl.nuevasync.com ([64.13.138.208]
	helo=mail.nuevasync.com)
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david_list@boreham.org>) id 1UFz1I-00054T-Ed
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:39:59 +0000
Received: from [192.168.65.159] (unknown [69.51.127.178])
	by mail.nuevasync.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CD64594A4
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:39:53 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <51414687.3010201@boreham.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:39:51 -0600
From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: New server setup
References: <4D6D1410-2208-4DAA-BD64-69BE1FD94E55@autouncle.com>
	<513CADB7.4030803@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<CAJY59_jNGwrPceXg8k04=1VWTTZTFTPTh+jGHopx92c+17Cj1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<51409C51.1070601@kickstone.com>
	<38D48FB0-92A8-433B-8D34-4C63738B45BA@gmail.com>
	<5140A623.20005@kickstone.com>
	<5140D226.4060609@pinpointresearch.com>
	<5140DE90.5010009@boreham.org> <51414409.6090505@catalyst.net.nz>
In-Reply-To: <51414409.6090505@catalyst.net.nz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------020709070007030104040703"
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-performance.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-performance>
List-Unsubscribe: 
 <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020709070007030104040703
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/13/2013 9:29 PM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Just going through this now with a vendor. They initially assured us 
> that the drives had "end to end protection" so we did not need to 
> worry. I had to post stripdown pictures from Intel's s3700, showing 
> obvious capacitors attached to the board before I was taken seriously 
> and actually meaningful specifications were revealed. So now I'm 
> demanding to know:
>
> - chipset (and version)
> - original manufacturer (for re-badged ones)
> - power off protection *explicitly* mentioned
> - show me the circuit board (and where are the capacitors) 

In addition to the above, I only use drives where I've seen compelling 
evidence that plug pull tests have been done and passed (e.g. done by 
someone on this list or in-house here).  I also like to have a high 
level of confidence in the firmware development group. This results in a 
very small set of acceptable products :(




--------------020709070007030104040703
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/13/2013 9:29 PM, Mark Kirkwood
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:51414409.6090505@catalyst.net.nz" type="cite">Just
      going through this now with a vendor. They initially assured us
      that the drives had "end to end protection" so we did not need to
      worry. I had to post stripdown pictures from Intel's s3700,
      showing obvious capacitors attached to the board before I was
      taken seriously and actually meaningful specifications were
      revealed. So now I'm demanding to know:
      <br>
      <br>
      - chipset (and version)
      <br>
      - original manufacturer (for re-badged ones)
      <br>
      - power off protection <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
          class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>explicitly<span
          class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> mentioned
      <br>
      - show me the circuit board (and where are the capacitors)
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    In addition to the above, I only use drives where I've seen
    compelling evidence that plug pull tests have been done and passed
    (e.g. done by someone on this list or in-house here).&nbsp; I also like
    to have a high level of confidence in the firmware development
    group. This results in a very small set of acceptable products :(<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------020709070007030104040703--