My $.02. As I agree SCSI has had a reputation for being a more solid enterprise type drive, everyone's mileage varies. We have moved to using all SATA drives in our newer servers. I have to admit most of our databases are smaller than what many on this list have. All our db's are under 500 megs. My reality is this. If a SATA drive does fail, so far only 1 over the last 18 months, it is cheap and easy to replace. I have all my setups raided so we have no lost data. At the same time I have several Hitachi/IBM SCSI drives just sitting here. Why, because we have to keep RMAing them when they fail. I have several that are bad but it just takes too much time to get them replaced. It's not worth my effort. We have even replaced whole servers just to get away from the SCSI drives. Of course I get bigger nicer boxes that way. ;-)) I have heard that many folks have problems with the newer 10k sata drives. So far they are running great for me with no failures. Although they have only been running for a few months. I'm hedging my bet and only using those on the backup servers for now.
Morals: 1) Performance is more than just the drive type. 2) Reliability is more than just the drive type.
Good luck with whatever you decide to use.
Larry
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott M. Grim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: SATA vs SCSI
I've fairly extensively (although not necessarily scientifically) tested SATA 150 vs. SCSI U320 and find that if you're doing a lot of random reads and writes (such as with a database server), SCSI provides nearly 5x the performance as SATA so, for us, it's well worth the additional expense.
It's also my experience that even the best SATA drives seem to be disposable. There's a huge difference in reliability and life expectancy between SATA and SCSI drives because they put a bit more quality into SCSI drives as they are expected to perform in an enterprise environment.
With RAID arrays and hotswap bays, it's easy enough to deal with SATA's
unreliability, but it's always best to not have to swap and rebuild because
every failure has the potential to cause some cascade that can become
devestating.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: SATA vs SCSI
Were kicking around using SATA drives in software RAID0 config.
The price diff is significant. You can also get SATA drives in 10k RPM form now.,
Kevin
--
Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator)! - visit http://rojo.com. See irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want to chat.
Rojo is Hiring! - http://www.rojonetworks.com/JobsAtRojo.html
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA AIM/YIM - sfburtonator, Web - http://peerfear.org/ GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
