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 hardware raid
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
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
BTW, someone
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 now offering SATA
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
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:
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:
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
* 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
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 Raid 1.
Any arguments pro or contra would be desirable.
From
-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
cards
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:10:32 +0200,
Jean-Yves F. Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Naa, you can find ATA | SATA ctrlrs for about EUR30 !
But those are the ones that you would generally be better off not using.
Definitely NOT, however if your server doen't have a heavy load, the
software
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
drive capacity
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
William Yu wrote:
We upgraded our disk system for our main data processing server earlier
this year. After pricing out all the components, basically we had the
choice of:
LSI MegaRaid 320-2 w/ 1GB RAM+BBU + 8 15K 150GB SCSI
or
Areca 1124 w/ 1GB RAM+BBU + 24 7200RPM 250GB SATA
My mistake
15 matches
Mail list logo
