Ruslan Sivak wrote: > 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. Hence the smiley. >> >>> 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. 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).