Russell Coker <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, Jason White <[email protected]> wrote: >> Mine is six years old now (two Xeon 5140 CPUs at 2.33 ghz, 4GB RAM) and >> still more than adequate. The boot time is undoubtedly helped by the SAS >> drives. If I were buying a new machine, though, I'd consider an SSD. >> Incidentally, I bought it used, at a very large discount and the SAS disks >> were a surprise. > > If you aren't using systemd then I doubt that SAS disks gain you > anything. The advantage of SAS is command queuing and that's not much > of an advantage if you have mostly a single process accessing the > disk. It's only when systemd launches lots of daemons at the same > time that command queuing can give an advantage.
Uh, wtf? systemd doesn't have a monopoly on starting services in parallel. e.g. startpar is enabled by default in Debian 6. http://manpages.debian.net/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=startpar http://manpages.debian.net/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=insserv $ ls /etc/rc2.d README S02cron S03busybox-klogd S01lxc S02motd S04bootlogs S02acpid S02rsync S05rc.local S02atd S02ssh S05rmnologin S02binfmt-support S02sudo S05stop-bootlogd S02busybox-syslogd S02webfs All those S02s start in parallel. Having said that, boot speed is a bloody silly reason to pick SAS vs. SATA. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
