Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000FF9FA6A2 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:43:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78602-04-2 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:43:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from heaven.kostyrka.org (h1634.serverkompetenz.net [81.169.154.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62D99FB350 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:43:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by heaven.kostyrka.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CACF4FB8A; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:43:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from heaven.kostyrka.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (heaven.kostyrka.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17431-08; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:43:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from andi-lap (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by heaven.kostyrka.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56C524FB88; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:43:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by andi-lap (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:43:05 +0200 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:43:05 +0200 From: Andreas Kostyrka To: "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: "jason@ohloh.net" , Geoff Tolley , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA Message-ID: <20070404154305.GA25764@andi-lap.la.revver.com> References: <9C0858F5-0A48-4AF9-80FF-E4BA14F0F965@ohloh.net> <4613053F.5070401@polimetrix.com> <4613C14A.4020703@commandprompt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4613C14A.4020703@commandprompt.com> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Debian) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/74 X-Sequence-Number: 23951 * Joshua D. Drake [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