Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:12:08 01/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2004 at 23:30:31, Gordon Rattray wrote: >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. The best SCSI interface in town: http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030606/ Hotsy-totsy SATA server performance: http://storagereview.com/articles/200311/20031111WD740GD_4.html Hotsy-totsy SCSI ultra320 server performance: http://storagereview.com/articles/200304/20030429MAS3735_4.html Bottom line: SATA 207 I/Os per second --> highest available performance SCSI 366 I/Os per second --> highest available performance 77% improvement. SCSI rules in pure performance. SATA rules in price performance. So if you have to have the ultimate in speed, you need Ultra320 SCSI 15K RPM drives. But if you have to have the cheapest I/Os per second, then it is SATA. SATA has a problem for database. What happens to a write if you kick the plug out of the wall in mid-stream? The interface standard does not describe how a fsync() could be performed reliably. I would be very nervous to store billions of dollars of data on a large SATA array, unless it had duplicated UPS.
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.