[CentOS] Re: Anaconda doesn't support raid10
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu May 10 13:41:28 UTC 2007
Andreas Micklei wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Mai 2007 schrieb Feizhou:
>>> Probably not, but is SATA really much worse then SCSI or SAS? I did
>>> some testing on a dell PE 2950 of 750GB SATA's vs SAS and SCSI drives,
>>> and the SATA drives seem to be faster at least at first glance. I don't
>>> have good numbers from the SCSI tests, but at least for sequantial, I'm
>>> getting a better speed off the SATAs.
>> sequential will be better than SCSI due to the packing on those platters
>> which make up for the lack in rpm. NCQ should even up the random ability
>> of SATA disks versus SCSI drives but that support has only become
>> available lately on Linux and you also need the right hardware (besides
>> the right disks).
>
> SAS and SCSI really has it's place when you need random access with lots of
> IOs per second, i.e. Fileserver, Database Server. We upgraded our Fileserver
> (NFS, Samba) from SATA SW Raid to SCSI HW Raid and the difference is HUGE.
> One the old system a single user doing a large file copy could bring the
> system almost to a halt. On the new system you do not even notice if one user
> does a similar operation. However plugging one of the same SCSI discs into
> your average PC will not give you much advantage.
>
> There is also a line of SATA discs that aim for the low-end server market, the
> WD-Raptors. They spin at 10.000 rpm and give much better random access
> performance than normal SATA drives. The price point is very attractive
> compared to SCSI and SAS. Great alternative for a tight budget.
>
> Here is my favorite site for comparing drives. Has nice background articles
> too:
> http://www.storagereview.com/
I've always wanted a dollars to dollars comparison instead of comparing
single components, and I've always thought that a bunch of RAM could
make up for slow disks in a lot of situations. Has anyone done any sort
of tests that would confirm whether a typical user would get better
performance from spending that several hundred dollars premium for scsi
on additional ram instead? Obviously this will depend to a certain
extend on the applications and how much having additional cache can help
it, but unless you are continuously writing new data, most things can
live in cache - especially for machines that run continuously.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the CentOS
mailing list