Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:22:04 -0400 From: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> To: Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> Cc: Marc =?ISO-8859-1?B?Ry4=?= Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>, Atom Powers <atom.powers@gmail.com>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, chad@shire.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Message-ID: <cone.1151533324.192719.61382.1000@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <20060620060845.U1114@ganymede.hub.org> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOECCFEAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <ef10de9a0606211118v43e0c3f4g1631c6c617bb6970@mail.gmail.com> <20060621183832.H1114@ganymede.hub.org> <ef10de9a0606211523h566b86c7u636889d826ce38e5@mail.gmail.com> <20060621195523.I1114@ganymede.hub.org> <df9ac37c0606220834h3d122cc9n4804674d5ce7009b@mail.gmail.com> <cone.1151484011.696455.14057.5001@35st-server.simplicato.com> <ef10de9a0606280318r6847c403uf57fb5f1da452a66@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nikolas Britton writes: >> Dont get me wrong.. I can get approval to go SCSI since our >> machines need at least 1T+ (the storage machines) err.. should have say "can't get approval" to go SCSI.. We are using SATA. > Why? 1TB and up is a SATA niche. Correct.. that is what we use. > You can buy 3 SATA arrays for the price of 1 SCSI array Yup. SCSI drives are 3 to 5 times more expensive than SATA. >.... Also... gigabit Ethernet is only 125MB/s > (Max) and and a single SATA drive can easily transfer at 50MB/s*. But RAID can possibly do more than 125MB/sec if doing large sequential files.. When I last tested on a 100Mb switch vs a 1000Mb switch, the performance difference in our case (rsyncing data from Maildir) was around 25% to 30% as measured over a week. And this is mostly lots and lots of small files. That tells me that even with SATA we are able to go over the 100Mb limit. 8 Disks in RAID 10, with 2 hot spares. > limiting factor is probably going to be your bus with arrays/GigE so > SCSI is pointless unless you can take advantage of SCSI's TCQ with > high random access I/O loads If we could afford it I still think SCSI would be usefull. It is not only about raw throughput, but how quickly you can get the data to the apps or to disk. Specially in a database or Maildir enviroment where there is lots of I/O going on. > *I just tested this with two Maxtor SATA drives the other day: > dd if=/dev/disk1 of=/dev/disk2 bs=4m. It dropped off to about 30MB/s > at the end but my average read/write was just over 50MB/s. But that is mostly sequential work.. I think for sequential work SATA is definitely the way to go.. is when you get into the random I/O that supposedly SCSI outshines SATA.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cone.1151533324.192719.61382.1000>