Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
- To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
- Cc: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:30, James Mansion wrote: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?Logic? Mechanical devices have decreasing MTBF when run in hotter environments, often at non-linear rates.
this I will agree with.
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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Ron
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- References:
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: James Mansion
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- From: Scott Marlowe
- Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Prev by Date: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering
- Next by Date: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Previous by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Next by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA
- Indexes: