Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0329FBA4B for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:59:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36207-06 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:58:25 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from mail.envysolutions.com (unknown [206.248.142.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C702F9FBB6F for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:58:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.envysolutions.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952405403E; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:58:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.envysolutions.com Received: from mail.envysolutions.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mark.mielke.cc [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1RI9HrN5DF0E; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail.envysolutions.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 654145403F; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:58:03 -0400 From: mark@mark.mielke.cc To: "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: Andreas Kostyrka , "jason@ohloh.net" , Geoff Tolley , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA Message-ID: <20070404165803.GB3943@mark.mielke.cc> References: <9C0858F5-0A48-4AF9-80FF-E4BA14F0F965@ohloh.net> <4613053F.5070401@polimetrix.com> <4613C14A.4020703@commandprompt.com> <20070404154305.GA25764@andi-lap.la.revver.com> <4613C954.8050203@commandprompt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4613C954.8050203@commandprompt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.363 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.377, BAYES_05=-1.11, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.135, NO_REAL_NAME=0.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200704/80 X-Sequence-Number: 23957 On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:50:44AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA > >discs, that might have been bad luck. > Probably bad luck. I find that SCSI is very reliable, but I don't find > it any more reliable than SATA. That is assuming correct ventilation etc... Perhaps a basic question - but why does the interface matter? :-) I find the subject interesting to read about - but I am having trouble understanding why SATAII is technically superior or inferior to SCSI as an interface, in any place that counts. Is the opinion being expressed that manufacturers who have decided to move to SATAII are not designing for the enterprise market yes? I find myself doubting this... Cheers, mark -- mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/