Re: SCSI vs SATA
От | Ron |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E1HZeyl-0000cI-NU@elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SCSI vs SATA (david@lang.hm) |
Ответы |
Re: SCSI vs SATA
Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Список | pgsql-performance |
At 10:07 PM 4/5/2007, david@lang.hm wrote: >On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >>Server class drives are designed with a longer lifespan in mind. >> >>Server class hard drives are rated at higher temperatures than desktop >>drives. > >these two I question. > >David Lang Both statements are the literal truth. Not that I would suggest abusing your server class HDs just because they are designed to live longer and in more demanding environments. Overheating, nasty electrical phenomenon, and abusive physical shocks will trash a server class HD almost as fast as it will a consumer grade one. The big difference between the two is that a server class HD can sit in a rack with literally 100's of its brothers around it, cranking away on server class workloads 24x7 in a constant vibration environment (fans, other HDs, NOC cooling systems) and be quite happy while a consumer HD will suffer greatly shortened life and die a horrible death in such a environment and under such use. Ron
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: