Feizhou wrote: > 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. > I know you meant it in a joking way. I'm kinda pissed at RIM though for not letting me reply properly on my blackberry. >>> >>>> 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). How would I know if my system is using NCQ? I think my drives and card should support it. Russ