* Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070404 17:40]:
>
> >Good point. On another note, I am wondering why nobody's brought up the
> >command-queuing perf benefits (yet). Is this because sata vs scsi are at
>
> SATAII has similar features.
>
> >par here? I'm finding conflicting information on this -- some calling sata's
> >ncq mostly crap, others stating the real-world results are negligible. I'm
> >inclined to believe SCSI's
> >pretty far ahead here but am having trouble finding recent articles on this.
>
> What I find is, a bunch of geeks sit in a room and squabble about a few
> percentages one way or the other. One side feels very l33t because their
> white paper looks like the latest
> swimsuit edition.
>
> Real world specs and real world performance shows that SATAII performs, very,
> very well. It is kind of like X86. No chip engineer that I know has ever
> said, X86 is elegant but guess
> which chip design is conquering all others in the general and enterprise
> marketplace?
Actually, to second that, we did have very similiar servers with
SCSI/SATA drives, and I did not notice any relevant measurable
difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA
discs, that might have been bad luck.
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
