DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=hkqBkJ+3B7J93WrAJsa5oBgI06ELnSJk8v7cF9NJk+W/6rQiS78tHFr+3Bv7y2qOGxOMexJv1aqh+iB0iTbCRls/8E314DJ3N4oMwilBuDVu9pGwPnm2H3ODfS6uYuKwiC9DMnDJfT4A8FNiQfCv+3/ZOGqNkZ14pZvCKIMJA7s=
Message-ID: <33c6269f05041410135875d7c5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:13:41 -0400
From: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
To: "Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com" <Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: Intel SRCS16 SATA raid?
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <33c6269f05041410011fe1f283@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <87zmw1h0i2.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
	<OF03BE9953.89EA36F9-ON05256FE3.0059A05D-05256FE3.0059EDDD@ftw.us.ray.com>
	<33c6269f05041410011fe1f283@mail.gmail.com>

I have put together a little head to head performance of a 15k SCSI,
10k SCSI 10K SATA w/TCQ, 10K SATA wo/TCQ and 7.2K SATA drive
comparison at storage review

http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=3D10=
&testbedID=3D3&osID=3D4&raidconfigID=3D1&numDrives=3D1&devID_0=3D232&devID_=
1=3D40&devID_2=3D259&devID_3=3D267&devID_4=3D261&devID_5=3D248&devCnt=3D6

It does illustrate some of the weaknesses of SATA drives, but all in
all the Raptor drives put on a good show.

Alex Turner
netEconomist

On 4/14/05, Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have read a large chunk of this, and I would highly recommend it to
> anyone who has been participating in the drive discussions.  It is
> most informative!!
>=20
> Alex Turner
> netEconomist
>=20
> On 4/14/05, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com <Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com>=
 wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > I posted this link under a different thread (the $7k server thread).  I=
t is
> > a very good read on why SCSI is better for servers than ATA.  I didn't =
note
> > bias, though it is from a drive manufacturer.  YMMV.  There is an
> > interesting, though dated appendix on different manufacturers' drive
> > characteristics.
> >
> > http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interf=
ace_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 04/14/2005 09:54:45 AM:
> >
> > >
> > > Our vendor is trying to sell us on an Intel SRCS16 SATA raid controll=
er
> > > instead of the 3ware one.
> > >
> > > Poking around it seems this does come with Linux drivers and there is=
 a
> > > battery backup option. So it doesn't seem to be completely insane.
> > >
> > > Anyone have any experience with these controllers?
> > >
> > > I'm also wondering about whether I'm better off with one of these SAT=
A
> > raid
> > > controllers or just going with SCSI drives.
> > >
> > > --
> > > greg
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)------------------------=
---
> > > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------=
-
> > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if y=
our
> >       joining column's datatypes do not match
> >
>