Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1084B9FB6DA for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:17:01 -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 18984-09 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:16:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-254.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8739FB661 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:16:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l34FG9Nx008935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:16:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4613C14A.4020703@commandprompt.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:16:26 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070306) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "jason@ohloh.net" CC: Geoff Tolley , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA References: <9C0858F5-0A48-4AF9-80FF-E4BA14F0F965@ohloh.net> <4613053F.5070401@polimetrix.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.5/2987/Sat Mar 31 20:15:28 2007 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:16:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/71 X-Sequence-Number: 23948 > > 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? SATAII brute forces itself through some of its performance, for example 16MB write cache on each drive. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/