Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 20:30:31 01/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2004 at 22:40:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 22, 2004 at 22:36:23, margolies,marc wrote: [snip] >>And dont put your data to be accessed on a slow hard drive either. A ten >>thousand speed rotating SATA (150gb throughput) drive with 78 gigabytes of >>storage costs only between 250 and 300 USD. > >You were doing good until you got to the SATA drive. Throw it away and >get a 15K U320 SCSI drive... I agree that SCSI is fastest. But aren't some of the SATA drives gaining on them? A Western Digital Raptor 740 (SATA) can gain an average seek time of 4.5 ms. Whereas, a Maxtor Atlas 15k (SCSI) may acheive 3.2 ms. A huge difference?! And then, the cheaper SATA drives may be put in a RAID config more feasibly in terms of cost. So, overall I'm not so sure that SCSI is still so attractive. I'm personally thinking of two SATA 10k drives in RAID 1 config. Given that I've got an onboard RAID controller, how much would a better SCSI solution cost me (2 drives + SCSI controller)? I'm guessing a significant bit more, and not a huge performance increase to justify it. Gordon [snip]
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.