Re: SATA vs SCSI ...

From: Artem Kuchin (matrix_at_itlegion.ru)
Date: 06/27/05

  • Next message: Patrick M. Hausen: "Re: SATA vs SCSI ..." 
    To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:13:04 +0400

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
    > looking at the specs between two cards, the SATA card(s) seem to rate
    > ~100-150MB/s on each channel (if I'm reading right), with both the
    > 3Ware and ICP cards having 4 individual channels ... looking at the
    > SCSI cards, they are rated at 320MB/s, but that is total for the SCSI
    > bus itself, right?
    >
    > So, if I have three drives on a SCSI bus, each 'maxing out evenly',
    > I'd be cap'd at about the same 100MB/s per drive, no?
    >
    > In fact, looking at the SATA 2.x specs, each chanell there is rated at
    > 300MB/s, which, again, if I could 'max out evenly', could seriously
    > blow away the SCSI bus itself ...
    >
    > *If* I'm reading this right ... ?

    For the last 6 month i really think that if you don't need something high-end
    scsi then you should go for SATA. There are test on sites such as
    Tom's hardware guide and ixbt.com. They show then on sequrncial read
    there is no difference between scsi and sata. Acatuallty, modern hdds use
    the same mechanics for sata and scsi versions of them. The brains (electronics)
    on the hdds are different of course. However, when it comes to random read/writes
    scsi wins because of command queueing. This was an issue until recently,
    Recently SATA with NCQ became widly available. Test show that some of those
    SATA disks with NCW ***WIN*** over scsi 320. The test envolve artificialy random
    read/write tests as well as real application benchmarking. I din't rememeber where
    excatly i saw the tests on those site, but you could search.

    So, my opinion, workstation never needs SCSI and every server MUST be
    on mirror or RAID5 and there you should use SATA with NCQ drivers unless,
    your applicaton is really weird and needs something extremely speedy. Then, however,
    you could go for RAID 0+1 and get perfomance that SCSI will never get you. 

    --
Regards,
Artem Kuchin
IT Legion Ltd.
Moscow, Russia
www.itlegion.ru
matrix@itlegion.ru
+7 095 232-0338
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Patrick M. Hausen: "Re: SATA vs SCSI ..."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: What still uses the block layer?
      ... often _only_ be used by going through the SCSI midlayer. ... That's because modern USB, ATAPI, SATA ... As far as I can tell the hard drives do not have serial numbers easily ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
      ... I only discount SATA because of their lineage. ... I perceive SATA as having a higher failure rate than SCSI in a server ... Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP] ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Re: SCSI vs. SATA?
      ... But I'm considering the new SATA stuff because of price. ... is it as fast as SCSI like they claim? ... bus with a dedicated controller and at least three identical drives. ... bus speeds are getting quicker all ...
      (comp.periphs.scsi)
    • Re: What still uses the block layer?
      ... often _only_ be used by going through the SCSI midlayer. ... That's because modern USB, ATAPI, SATA ... Hard drives do not ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: What do you use?
      ... I haven't used any SATA stuff yet. ... >>I can guarantee modern SCSI throughput is superior to any of the SATA ... you've got drives like the WD 'Raptor' ... so effectively need one channel per disk. ...
      (freebsd-questions)