| From: | Andreas Kostyrka <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, Geoff Tolley <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-04 15:43:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20070404154305.GA25764@andi-lap.la.revver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
* Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [070404 17:40]:
>
> >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
>
> SATAII has similar features.
>
> >par here? I'm finding conflicting information on this -- some calling sata's ncq mostly crap, others stating the real-world results are negligible. I'm inclined to believe SCSI's
> >pretty far ahead here but am having trouble finding recent articles on this.
>
> What I find is, a bunch of geeks sit in a room and squabble about a few percentages one way or the other. One side feels very l33t because their white paper looks like the latest
> swimsuit edition.
>
> Real world specs and real world performance shows that SATAII performs, very, very well. It is kind of like X86. No chip engineer that I know has ever said, X86 is elegant but guess
> which chip design is conquering all others in the general and enterprise marketplace?
Actually, to second that, we did have very similiar servers with
SCSI/SATA drives, and I did not notice any relevant measurable
difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA
discs, that might have been bad luck.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-04-04 15:50:44 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-04-04 15:40:33 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |