[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a basic question - but why does the interface matter? :-)
The interface itself matters not so much these days as the drives that
happen to use it. Most manufacturers make both SATA and SCSI lines, are
keen to keep the market segmented, and don't want to canni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for that matter, with 20ish 320G drives, how large would a parition be
that only used the outer pysical track of each drive? (almost certinly
multiple logical tracks) if you took the time to set this up you could
eliminate seeking entirely (at the cost of not useing yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good point. On another note, I am wondering why nobody's brought up
the command-queuing perf benefits (yet). Is this because sata vs scsi
are at par here? I'm finding conflicting information on this -- some
calling sata's ncq mostly crap, others stating the real-wor
Ron wrote:
At 07:07 PM 4/3/2007, Ron wrote:
For random IO, the 3ware cards are better than PERC
> Question: will 8*15k 73GB SCSI drives outperform 24*7K 320GB SATA II
drives?
Nope. Not even if the 15K 73GB HDs were the brand new Savvio 15K
screamers.
Example assuming 3.5" HDs and RAID 10
Joe Uhl wrote:
[1] What is the performance penalty of software raid over hardware raid?
Is it truly significant? We will be working with 100s of GB to 1-2 TB
of data eventually.
One thing you should appreciate about hw vs sw raid is that with the former
you can battery-back it and enable co
