Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:14:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com> To: Scott Mitchell <scott+freebsd@fishballoon.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What do you use? Message-ID: <20040102131144.B72627@zoraida.natserv.net> In-Reply-To: <20040101224616.GA4891@tuatara.fishballoon.org> References: <3FF31E4B.1070305@edgefocus.com> <200312311706.25677.jbacon@mcw.edu> <20040101114640.GB675@tuatara.fishballoon.org> <20040101224616.GA4891@tuatara.fishballoon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Scott Mitchell wrote: > There no particular reason for an ATA RAID to be slower than SCSI, assuming > similar disks in each. 10krpm 'server class' ATA disks are available these > days, although I don't know that anyone has done a 15krpm one yet. That is the point. SCSI disks have historically outperformed IDE drives. It is only in the last few years that the gap has started to narrow. I also depends on the operation. I have had really old SCSI drives outperform much newer IDE drives under certain conditions. Specially where there is lots of random I/O at the same time there is multi-user access patterns. I think it really comes down to whether the user wants the absolute performance (ie go with SCSI), or wants a better value for the money in which case IDE would probably be the choice.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040102131144.B72627>