Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:51:31 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: Juha Saarinen <juhasaarinen@gmail.com> Cc: tundra@tundraware.com, r17fbsd@xxiii.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strange Intel Mobo Behavior Message-ID: <4663D293.1000602@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <b34be8420706032358h539f1703tb85a60bf4fa68816@mail.gmail.com> References: <46630382.8010901@tundraware.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20070603232531.03dffe40@mailsvr.xxiii.com> <4663AFCC.6080508@tundraware.com> <b34be8420706032358h539f1703tb85a60bf4fa68816@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Juha Saarinen wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> I get around 50MB/sec or so with about 2G file, so we're in the same
>> ballpark. In round numbers, this is 1/3 the theoretical throughput
>> of a SATA-150 or 1/6 that of SATA-300. Now, I *am* curious on what
>> the bottlenecks are. 50MB/sec isn't a whole lot different that what
>> I'd expect out of a modern PATA drive.
>
> I'm getting 50-55Mbyte/s as well, on an ICH7-equipped board and
> SATA-150 hard drive. Seems to fall within expectations. The maximum
> theoretical interface speed isn't the same as what you get from the
> device connected to it, unfortunately. It's pretty fast still
> considering the price of the hardware, and if you want more, use RAID.
Yes, there is software overhead to consider, and the speeds are most
likely burst speeds.
>> So, noting the better cabling
>> and the wide availability of on-board RAID, it sure looks to me like
>> there
>> is no compelling argument to be made for SATA in non-RAIDed
>> environments.
>> I'm guessing the drives are the same ones as their PATA counterparts,
>> just
>> with different interface electronics, so we're not going to see
>> SCSI-like
>> reliability and/or performance under load.
>
> Not entirely correct. SATA is hot-swappable, and you can get drives
> with command queuing for improved performance. No master/slave jumper
> fiddling either, which is nice. It's a technology not to be spat at,
> basically, and it's much cheaper than SCSI.
Agreed. SATA is a nice technology, and the price is right.
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4663D293.1000602>