Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1D19FB998 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:40:21 -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 99480-08 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:40:03 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from mail.polimetrix.com (mail.polimetrix.com [209.128.109.230]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496FB9FB90F for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:40:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [10.1.1.201] ([10.1.1.201]) by mail.polimetrix.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:40:03 -0700 Message-ID: <4613F102.9050106@polimetrix.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:40:02 -0700 From: Geoff Tolley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070226 CentOS/1.0.8-0.2.el4.centos SeaMonkey/1.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mark@mark.mielke.cc CC: "Joshua D. Drake" , Andreas Kostyrka , "jason@ohloh.net" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA 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> <20070404165803.GB3943@mark.mielke.cc> In-Reply-To: <20070404165803.GB3943@mark.mielke.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2007 18:40:04.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8EDDE80:01C776E8] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/84 X-Sequence-Number: 23961 mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote: > Perhaps a basic question - but why does the interface matter? :-) The interface itself matters not so much these days as the drives that happen to use it. Most manufacturers make both SATA and SCSI lines, are keen to keep the market segmented, and don't want to cannibalize their SCSI business by coming out with any SATA drives that are too good. One notable exception is Western Digital, which is why they remain the only makers of 10K SATAs more than three years after first coming out with them. Cheers, Geoff