Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AEE9FB92A for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:30:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99310-02-6 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:30:02 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.224]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361009FB6BA for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:30:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i28so193235wxd for ; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=PCobECT9Hqj3V199M4nB8tsHRpxbfcQgcBrc2Y0LG6GV/YCX+KHIRc7qj2o9L6DGqrXDl5Zg/ziZyaaD5lyHptyFwTqRnXvILiSeqmwig3dFUI9mWR8dMskdm5D8GwTKEKiuaH8D3P7isV848zDQVdE60Lh0EkoLPJtjpqc8NyI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=BAa8pWn6gqDfjjgUv75xgXfEiD6QN3B8y6x8SuTTIVSJrxnt8sK7U7SluPKht9EO5QUIgPXXu05phsR0Ynv1jt50oUmn1CNIFVqdSWbE90PyPypU9UnfoFDBi275BFIm22RGVjjPZnbMEnSjGbYw345glhg/SHPCNbrNCjGdFZc= Received: by 10.114.190.6 with SMTP id n6mr250994waf.1175693400647; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.154.16 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:30:00 +0200 From: "Peter Kovacs" To: "Andreas Kostyrka" , "Peter Kovacs" , "david@lang.hm" , "Geoff Tolley" , Ron , "jason@ohloh.net" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA In-Reply-To: <20070404131920.GA8549@alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <9C0858F5-0A48-4AF9-80FF-E4BA14F0F965@ohloh.net> <4613053F.5070401@polimetrix.com> <20070404124640.GC20893@andi-lap.la.revver.com> <20070404131920.GA8549@alvh.no-ip.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: c240289ef540743b X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/63 X-Sequence-Number: 23940 But if an individual disk fails in a disk array, sooner than later you would want to purchase a new fitting disk, walk/drive to the location of the disk array, replace the broken disk in the array and activate the new disk. Is this correct? Thanks Peter On 4/4/07, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andreas Kostyrka escribi=F3: > > * Peter Kovacs [070404 14:40]: > > > This may be a silly question but: will not 3 times as many disk drive= s > > > mean 3 times higher probability for disk failure? Also rumor has it > > > that SATA drives are more prone to fail than SCSI drivers. More > > > failures will result, in turn, in more administration costs. > > Actually, the newest research papers show that all discs (be it > > desktops, or highend SCSI) have basically the same failure statistics. > > > > But yes, having 3 times the discs will increase the fault probability. > > ... of individual disks, which is quite different from failure of a disk > array (in case there is one). > > -- > Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.co= m/ > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. >