[nycbug-talk] Memory sizing

Pete Wright pete at nomadlogic.org
Fri May 5 17:25:11 EDT 2006

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:37:03PM -0400, Isaac Levy wrote:
> Hi Pete, Francisco,
> Sorry to take this memory thread over to disks again (highly  
> informative!), but,
> On Apr 23, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Pete Wright wrote:
> >SATA drives are pretty good, we use them for some things although for
> >something as critical as a database i would not trust them  
> >especially if
> >you expecting to have frequent/large disk IO happening.
> With all due respect to Pete, (knowing his experience with MUCHO disk  
> worklife), I have to disagree from direct experience.
> I've been using SATA for years in extremely demanding disk i/o  
> enviornments, lots of raid, lots of unstructured heavy disk i/o use,  
> and I've come to love SATA.
> One other component of my SATA attitude is the cost, it's cheap to  
> replace disks- so I then use lots of raid in the big picture...
> SCSI itself has always made me grieved in one way or another, and  
> I've experienced new SCSI disks to be made as shoddily as any type of  
> disk made today... e.g. they all fail at some point.  (does anyone  
> else feel like overall quality goes down when they cram so many GB  
> into such tiny platters?...)
> My .02?, definately not intended for flame- just my experiences have  
> been very positive with SATA.

heh, no flame i'm glad we both can offer up our experiences.  i'd still
have to say in an ideal world go for SCSI, granted they are more
expensive than SATA drives but in the long run i think a SCSI
implementation will offer less grief in the long run (code maturity,
disk are generally more robust <IMHO> and faster, and SCSI controllers
generally are going to outperform SATA RIAD controllers) for a database

anyway, i guess it's one of those times when it's good to have options
eh? ;)


Peter Wright
pete at nomadlogic.org

More information about the talk mailing list