On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Scott Tanner wrote:
I am hoping the newer SATA II drives will provide SCSI performance
at a
reasonable price. It would be interesting to see if anyone has
polled ISP's
to see what they're using. I know they charge more (or at least
they used
to) for SCSI drives if you are renting a server from them. It
would be
interesting to see what their failure rate is on IDE vs SCSI vs SATA.
Mike
By newer SATA II drivers, are you referring to SAS drives?
No, typically "SATA II" is meant to refer to SATA w/ NCQ + doubled
max throughput.
My company is in the process of switching to direct attached SAS
arrays for our database servers, as part of a scale-out model. We've
done testing between SATA, SCSI, and SAS arrays, and the SCSI and SAS
systems were very comparative. The number of disks in the array seemed
to have a larger effect then the type of disk. SAS also has more fiber
like features then SCSI, making it better suited for HA environments.
Yeah, that's sort of the conventional-wisdom for drive arrays: More
spindles == faster. It's roughly analogous to adding CPUs versus
getting faster CPUs with a workload that's easily parallelizable.
More spindles means more heads. More heads means more simultaneous
seeks, reads, and writes.
-JF
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
