At 11:53 AM 5/12/2006 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Scott Ribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My damn powerbook drive recently failed with very little warning
> It seems to me that S.M.A.R.T. reporting is a crock of shit. I've had ATA
> drives report everything OK while clearly in the final throes of
Scott Ribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My damn powerbook drive recently failed with very little warning
> It seems to me that S.M.A.R.T. reporting is a crock of shit. I've had ATA
> drives report everything OK while clearly in the final throes of death, just
> minutes before total failure.
FWI
> My damn powerbook drive recently failed with very little warning
It seems to me that S.M.A.R.T. reporting is a crock of shit. I've had ATA
drives report everything OK while clearly in the final throes of death, just
minutes before total failure.
--
Scott Ribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kille
Hmm... I should figure out how to have OS X email me daily log updates
like FreeBSD does...
Logwatch.
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL so
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:20:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > > >> You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is
> > > >> internally
> > > >> better than a desktop drive:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.seag
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:20:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > >> You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is internally
> > >> better than a desktop drive:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_In
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >> Well western digital and Seagate both carry 5 year warranties. Seagate I
> >> believe does on almost all of there products. WD you have to pick the
> >> right drive.
> >
> > That's nice, but it seems similar to my Toshiba laptop drive experience
> > --- it breaks,
Well western digital and Seagate both carry 5 year warranties. Seagate I
believe does on almost all of there products. WD you have to pick the
right drive.
That's nice, but it seems similar to my Toshiba laptop drive experience
--- it breaks, we replace it. I would rather not have to replace
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >> You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is internally
> >> better than a desktop drive:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
> >
> > BTW, someone (Western Digital?) is
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 03:38:31PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >>You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is internally
> >>better than a desktop drive:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
> >
You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is internally
better than a desktop drive:
http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
BTW, someone (Western Digital?) is now offering SATA drives that carry
the same MTBF
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 08:59:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Vivek Khera wrote:
> > >
> > > On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
> > >> perfectly acceptable if you have a hard
On May 9, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or more
specifically SATA-II?
With older Linux drivers (before spring 2005, I think) - all of
them - since it seems the linux kernel didn't support the
write barriers needed to forc
* Hannes Dorbath:
> + Hardware Raids might be a bit easier to manage, if you never spend a
> few hours to learn Software Raid Tools.
I disagree. RAID management is complicated, and once there is a disk
failure, all kinds of oddities can occur which can make it quite a
challenge to get back a non
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Vivek Khera wrote:
> >
> > On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
> >> perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
> >> battery backup controller.
> >>
> >> And do
Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
battery backup controller.
And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 04:16, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
> hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
>
> I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
> cards for a simple R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just had some discussion with colleagues regarding the usage of
> hardware or software raid 1/10 for our linux based database servers.
>
> I myself can't see much reason to spend $500 on high end controller
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
