| From: | Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-04 18:40:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4613F102.9050106@polimetrix.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc 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 cannibalize their SCSI
business by coming out with any SATA drives that are too good. One notable
exception is Western Digital, which is why they remain the only makers of
10K SATAs more than three years after first coming out with them.
Cheers,
Geoff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Mansion | 2007-04-04 18:45:01 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Geoff Tolley | 2007-04-04 18:03:23 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |