Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:16:55 +0900 From: Joel <rees@ddcom.co.jp> To: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: SATA vs SCSI ... Message-ID: <20050627152046.0F0C.REES@ddcom.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <004201c57adf$49367ad0$0c00a8c0@artem> References: <20050626233114.G57847@ganymede.hub.org> <004201c57adf$49367ad0$0c00a8c0@artem>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:13:04 +0400 "Artem Kuchin" <matrix@itlegion.ru> wrote > Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > looking at the specs between two cards, the SATA card(s) seem to rate > > ~100-150MB/s on each channel (if I'm reading right), with both the > > 3Ware and ICP cards having 4 individual channels ... looking at the > > SCSI cards, they are rated at 320MB/s, but that is total for the SCSI > > bus itself, right? > > > > So, if I have three drives on a SCSI bus, each 'maxing out evenly', > > I'd be cap'd at about the same 100MB/s per drive, no? > > > > In fact, looking at the SATA 2.x specs, each chanell there is rated at > > 300MB/s, which, again, if I could 'max out evenly', could seriously > > blow away the SCSI bus itself ... > > > > *If* I'm reading this right ... ? > > For the last 6 month i really think that if you don't need something high-end > scsi then you should go for SATA. There are test on sites such as > Tom's hardware guide and ixbt.com. I'm always pretty cautious about how much trust I give those benchmarks done by fanboy sites. Interesting stuff, but if it's mission critical and benchmark is important, I'm going to design and run the benchmark myself. And I'll cost that in when I give the estimate to the customer, if the customer wants SATA. (I think of a recent benchmark of Mac OS X/PPC and MySQL and nobody mentioning sync issues in the benchmark article.) > They show then on sequrncial read > there is no difference between scsi and sata. Acatuallty, modern hdds use > the same mechanics for sata and scsi versions of them. The brains (electronics) > on the hdds are different of course. However, when it comes to random read/writes > scsi wins because of command queueing. This was an issue until recently, > Recently SATA with NCQ became widly available. Test show that some of those > SATA disks with NCW ***WIN*** over scsi 320. The test envolve artificialy random > read/write tests as well as real application benchmarking. I din't rememeber where > excatly i saw the tests on those site, but you could search. Well, I've been fighting on and off for about four weeks with an ATAPI drive with SMART reporting bad sectors, and I'll offer this: when you cost an ATAPI/SATA hard drive, make sure you factor in the cost of backup/mirror. Considering the business about Mac OS X and MySQL and sync, I'd factor in UPS as well. Make sure you set it up to start taking the system down long enough before the battery gives out that the drives have plenty of time to clear their internal cache. > So, my opinion, workstation never needs SCSI and every server MUST be > on mirror or RAID5 and there you should use SATA with NCQ drivers unless, > your applicaton is really weird and needs something extremely speedy. Then, however, > you could go for RAID 0+1 and get perfomance that SCSI will never get you. Now that I have a bad taste in my mouth from SMART, I'm interpreting that as "three SATA drives in RAID5 equals one SCSI drive". Contrary to what you expect, I do not expect performance from that. -- Joel Rees <rees@ddcom.co.jp> digitcom, inc. $B3t<02q<R%G%8%3%`(B Kobe, Japan +81-78-672-8800 ** <http://www.ddcom.co.jp>; **
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050627152046.0F0C.REES>