Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: "James Mansion" <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>
- To: "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "Andreas Kostyrka" <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, "Geoff Tolley" <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:30:50 +0100
>Server drives are generally more tolerant of higher temperatures. I.e. >the failure rate for consumer and server class HDs may be about the same >at 40 degrees C, but by the time the internal case temps get up to 60-70 >degrees C, the consumer grade drives will likely be failing at a much >higher rate, whether they're working hard or not. Can you cite any statistical evidence for this? James -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date: 04/04/2007 13:09
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Scott Marlowe
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- References:
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Scott Marlowe
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Prev by Date: Re: High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server
- Next by Date: Re: High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server
- Previous by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Next by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Indexes: