Re: SCSI vs SATA
От | david@lang.hm |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0704051905520.28411@asgard.lang.hm обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SCSI vs SATA (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SCSI vs SATA
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: