Re: SCSI vs SATA

>
> Good point. On another note, I am wondering why nobody's brought up the
> command-queuing perf benefits (yet). Is this because sata vs scsi are at

SATAII has similar features.

> par here? I'm finding conflicting information on this -- some calling
> sata's ncq mostly crap, others stating the real-world results are
> negligible. I'm inclined to believe SCSI's pretty far ahead here but am
> having trouble finding recent articles on this.

What I find is, a bunch of geeks sit in a room and squabble about a few
percentages one way or the other. One side feels very l33t because their
white paper looks like the latest swimsuit edition.

Real world specs and real world performance shows that SATAII performs,
very, very well. It is kind of like X86. No chip engineer that I know
has ever said, X86 is elegant but guess which chip design is conquering
all others in the general and enterprise marketplace?

SATAII brute forces itself through some of its performance, for example
16MB write cache on each drive.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
--

       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/