On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:42:25PM -0700, L. Couture wrote: > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:42:25 -0700 > From: "L. Couture" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051006) > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: [OT] SATA vs. SCSI > > > >>>I am shooting for top notch reliability. > >>SCSI. SATA's fast, but not as reliable, IMHO. > > > >SCSI is *expensive*. > > > >Unless you have huge databases that need the speed of 10K or 15K > >RPM drives, SATA is the way to go. > > The days of SCSI ruling are rapidly coming to an end. > > Now that SATA has NCQ and TCQ native (if you are using the proper > controller), 5 year warranties, 10K rpm, and sub 10ms access times, the
What's use from NCQ, if accordingly to http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html#tcq <cite> "Queueing support is not currently available in any release kernel." </cite> Best wishes -- Alexei Chetroi Smile... Tomorrow will be worse. (c) Murphy's Law -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]