Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>
- To: Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:48:40 +0200
- Message-id: <20070404134839(dot)GI20893(at)andi-lap(dot)la(dot)revver(dot)com>
* Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [070404 15:42]: > Peter Kovacs escribió: > > 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? > > Ideally you would have a spare disk to let the array controller replace > the broken one as soon as it breaks, but yeah, that would be more or Well, no matter what, you need to test this procedure. I'd expect in many cases the disc io during the rebuild of the array to that much slower that the database server won't be able to cope with the load. Andreas
- References:
- SCSI vs SATA
- From: jason(at)ohloh(dot)net
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Ron
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Ron
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Geoff Tolley
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: david
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Peter Kovacs
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Andreas Kostyrka
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Alvaro Herrera
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Peter Kovacs
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Alvaro Herrera
- SCSI vs SATA
- Prev by Date: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Next by Date: Large objetcs performance
- Previous by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Next by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Indexes: