Re: SCSI vs SATA
От | Peter Kovacs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b6e8f2e80704040630s5a9b1848g14beedd96f2b22f9@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SCSI vs SATA (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SCSI vs SATA
Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Список | pgsql-performance |
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 <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Andreas Kostyrka escribió: > > * Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com> [070404 14:40]: > > > This may be a silly question but: will not 3 times as many disk drives > > > 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.com/ > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: