Feizhou wrote: > Ross S. W. Walker wrote: >> Hey look at me! I'm top-posting!!! Nanny-nanny-poo-poo >> >> Come get me Trolls! > > Please do not top post. :) > He was probably hinting at me for top posting. Unfortunately, sometimes I write from the blackberry, which only allows top posting. Take it up with RIM. > >> SATA drives typically do 60-70MBs, interleaved you >> should see 120-140MB/s on sequential. Random IO on SATA >> usually sucks too badly to even talk about... > > Eh? It cannot be worse than PATA drives now can it? > _______________________________________________ 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. Russ