Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:20:36 01/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2004 at 01:34:40, Gordon Rattray wrote: >On January 23, 2004 at 00:12:08, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. > > >I agree that SCSI is fastest. But on some budgets, couldn't it be possible that >SATA in a RAID config is the best option (assuming that the equivalent SCSI RAID >setup is too expensive)? > >Gordon Lawyers call that "asked and answered". :) If the choice is SATA or nothing, then obviously SATA will win. :) However, _my_ perspective was about performance. And there SCSI is king by a wide margin. I see numbers that are >2x better on good SCSI, for example. > > >> >>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.