David Magda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2008, at 19:09, Tim wrote:
>
> > SAS has far greater performance, and if your workload is extremely
> > random,
> > will have a longer MTBF. SATA drives suffer badly on random
> > workloads.
>
> Well, if you can probably afford more SATA drives for the purchase
> price, you can put them in a striped-mirror set up, and that may help
> things. If your disks are cheap you can afford to buy more of them
> (space, heat, and power not withstanding).
SATA and SAS disks usually base on the same drive mechanism. The seek times
are most likely identical.
Some SATA disks support tagged command queueing and others do not.
I would asume that there is no speed difference between SATA with command
queueing and SAS.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
