Re: SATA vs SCSI
I've had this debate with myself a hundred times over the past 5 years since SATA started becoming more popular. I've come to a few simple conclusions... I've also been dissapointed with the performance of some of the SATA raid controllers (*cough* 3ware *cough*). I've got old dual p3 servers with SCSI arrays that can run laps around newer dual xeon servers with SATA arrays (when doing heavy disk I/O). SCSI is a more mature technology and I have to believe the drivers and controllers are a little more fine-tuned after all these years. You get what you pay for... Yes, SCSI is more expensive, but it offers better performance under heavier load. When you start dealing with gigs of data, whether it be in a database or an email spool or whatever, you'll see a measurable difference. SCSI really shines when you're moving serious amounts of data. To sum it up: If you NEED high performance, you need scsi. However, If you just WANT good performance but are remotely concerned about price, consider SATA. When you have to have performance, you have to have SCSI ... plain and simple. Just my two cents. Daniel On 5/12/05, Larry Lowry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have been using the controllers built into the motherboards. I know they are not as good as some dedicated cards but they work well enough for us. I prefer the nVidia nForce4 Ultra Chipsets. They have a nice raid setup. We needed a cheap box for data server but with a lot of tempory disk space. A system with the K8N Neo4 motherboard, Athlon 64 3500+, 2gb memory and 5 250gb sata drives yields a fast box with 1tb storage. All for under $1500. I know this is not an Enterprise DB box but again everyone has to evaluate their needs, budget and boss. Larry - Original Message - From: Moulder Glen CONT PBFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:30 AM Subject: FW: SATA vs SCSI Larry wrote: 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... What controller do you use for RAIDing the SATAs? Glen -- 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]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
I was a huge fan of 3ware's IDE offerings, but was also disappointed by their SATA cards. However, I found that the Adaptec 2410SA is a beautiful card with excellent performance, and it has a small enough profile to fit in most 1U cases. - Original Message - From: Daniel Whitener [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 7:35 AM Subject: Re: SATA vs SCSI I've had this debate with myself a hundred times over the past 5 years since SATA started becoming more popular. I've come to a few simple conclusions... I've also been dissapointed with the performance of some of the SATA raid controllers (*cough* 3ware *cough*). I've got old dual p3 servers with SCSI arrays that can run laps around newer dual xeon servers with SATA arrays (when doing heavy disk I/O). SCSI is a more mature technology and I have to believe the drivers and controllers are a little more fine-tuned after all these years. You get what you pay for... Yes, SCSI is more expensive, but it offers better performance under heavier load. When you start dealing with gigs of data, whether it be in a database or an email spool or whatever, you'll see a measurable difference. SCSI really shines when you're moving serious amounts of data. To sum it up: If you NEED high performance, you need scsi. However, If you just WANT good performance but are remotely concerned about price, consider SATA. When you have to have performance, you have to have SCSI ... plain and simple. Just my two cents. Daniel On 5/12/05, Larry Lowry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have been using the controllers built into the motherboards. I know they are not as good as some dedicated cards but they work well enough for us. I prefer the nVidia nForce4 Ultra Chipsets. They have a nice raid setup. We needed a cheap box for data server but with a lot of tempory disk space. A system with the K8N Neo4 motherboard, Athlon 64 3500+, 2gb memory and 5 250gb sata drives yields a fast box with 1tb storage. All for under $1500. I know this is not an Enterprise DB box but again everyone has to evaluate their needs, budget and boss. Larry - Original Message - From: Moulder Glen CONT PBFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:30 AM Subject: FW: SATA vs SCSI Larry wrote: 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... What controller do you use for RAIDing the SATAs? Glen -- 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] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
Scott M. Grim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/05/2005 16:42:00: 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. I would concur with this. Having talked to drive manufacturers, they use the Scsi interface, which is not in itself significantly faster than Sata, as a marker for what you might call Professional grade drives. Components such as bearings etc. are built to a higher spec, head actuators are more powerful, buffers are bigger, more effort is put into optimising the drive's internal code to do better overlapping, there are more self diagnostics etc. As is usually true, you pay for what you get. While there might be a slight element of gouge in it, SATA drives are basically consumer-grade drives with a fast interface, which SCSI drives are what the manufacturers think of as professional grade. What are the warranties and MTBF on the SATA drives like? A year or so ago, the manufacturers drastically cut the warranties on their ATA drives, without changing the SCSI. Where to SATA fall in this spectrum? Alec -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:29:47PM -0700, Kevin Burton wrote: 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., Good idea, but a few points : - 10krpm disks will run hotter than 7200rpm disks, this might be significant in your data centre. - the controller you pick will have a major impact on the raid setup - many controllers can't do real hardware raid (e.g. the controller on the Intel E7210 board needs windows for sort-of hardware raid, but the 3ware 9000 series sata controller will do real hw raid.) -- regards, Andy Davidson Sysadmin www.ebuyer.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
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]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
Newer SATA drives are supporting command queueing, which should really help their performance. I think when SATA-2 becomes more available, SATA will start being a more viable choice and start rivaling SCSI performance. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
I'd be curious what you tested. Did the SATA drives support tagged command queueing (TCQ)? That can make a huge difference in a multi-user environment, detrimental in a single user. How many drives were in the SATA array and how many were in the SCSI array? You could probably put 2-3x the numbers of drives in the SATA array, boosting performance, for the same price as a much smaller SCSI array. One on one I think an SATA is slower than SCSI, but bang for the buck I think goes to SATA. Here's a link to a review comparing SATA and SCSI. It shows equal setups (meaning number of drives) of SCSI and SATA have similar performance, but the SATA setup costs 40% less. Reliability is of course a major consideration, but the SATA drives of today are probably just as reliable as SCSI drives of 5 years ago. Kind of like the worst cars of today are more reliable than the best cars of 10 years ago. http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_1.html On May 12, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Scott M. Grim wrote: 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] -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SATA vs SCSI
Brent, I'd disagree with your felling that today's disk drives are more reliable than dive years ago. I used to think of disk failures as a rare event, but now that they are producing such high capacity parts for next to nothing, I think quality has suffered. I've heard of a lot more people suffering drive failures (in PCs, laptops and servers) recently. Also, I believe that Fujitsu produced an enormous batch of disks which had a very high failure rate. Whatever, I'd say make sure you've always got hot standby disks in your raid arrays, and keep decent backups :-) Andy -Original Message- From: Brent Baisley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2005 17:47 To: Scott M. Grim Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: SATA vs SCSI I'd be curious what you tested. Did the SATA drives support tagged command queueing (TCQ)? That can make a huge difference in a multi-user environment, detrimental in a single user. How many drives were in the SATA array and how many were in the SCSI array? You could probably put 2-3x the numbers of drives in the SATA array, boosting performance, for the same price as a much smaller SCSI array. One on one I think an SATA is slower than SCSI, but bang for the buck I think goes to SATA. Here's a link to a review comparing SATA and SCSI. It shows equal setups (meaning number of drives) of SCSI and SATA have similar performance, but the SATA setup costs 40% less. Reliability is of course a major consideration, but the SATA drives of today are probably just as reliable as SCSI drives of 5 years ago. Kind of like the worst cars of today are more reliable than the best cars of 10 years ago. http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_1.html On May 12, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Scott M. Grim wrote: 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] -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 -- 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]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
We have been using the controllers built into the motherboards. I know they are not as good as some dedicated cards but they work well enough for us. I prefer the nVidia nForce4 Ultra Chipsets. They have a nice raid setup. We needed a cheap box for data server but with a lot of tempory disk space. A system with the K8N Neo4 motherboard, Athlon 64 3500+, 2gb memory and 5 250gb sata drives yields a fast box with 1tb storage. All for under $1500. I know this is not an Enterprise DB box but again everyone has to evaluate their needs, budget and boss. Larry - Original Message - From: Moulder Glen CONT PBFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:30 AM Subject: FW: SATA vs SCSI Larry wrote: 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... What controller do you use for RAIDing the SATAs? Glen -- 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]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
Is there a question in there or are you just making a statement? I'll make a statement myself. The big difference between ATA and SCSI is command queueing. That's really where the performance difference comes from. Basically, command queueing means the drive has some intelligence about handling instructions and data. The drive can optimize the reads and writes without help from the OS. Command queueing is now available on some SATA (and ATA I think) drives, which would be more important than RPM. Unless of course, you deal with huge files like video or graphics, then command queueing isn't so important. Personally, it think a 4 drive SATA raid array would probably be as fast as a two drive scsi array and still be cheaper. On May 11, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Kevin Burton wrote: 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 -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SATA vs SCSI
Forget using drives all together for heavy hit applications. Build data that can fit on a ram Drive (8GB) then your able to do 20K qps. For instance, have a main master that holds a majority of tables call it MASTER. Then a sub master that holds the tables which you desire to run out of memory, call it SUBMASTER. Each slave connected to SUBMASTER then does a LOAD DATA FROM MASTER on startup based on init_file=path to the SQL file Defined in the my.cnf file Loading 2GB of data across the network on a GigE is very fast. So now you have the ability to handle 20K qps on a single box (assuming the box is a 4GB X86 Opteron with 2 processors and the main lookup is on a primary key) and also have redundancy with real time replication. For instance I have 5 servers with 4 GB of ram - the table that displays user names which is seen on friendster only takes 1.6 G of memory. All DB access is real time producing 3000 qps during peak per server where one server can handle the site, since that query type benchmarks for 2 qps. More then enough head room to scale since I can LB the reads across the 5 boxes. The front end will fall over before the backend - Easy cheap solution that can handle a crap load of load. DVP Dathan Vance Pattishall http://www.friendster.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:30 PM To: mysql@lists.mysql.com 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]
Re: SATA vs SCSI
Dathan Pattishall wrote: Forget using drives all together for heavy hit applications. Build data that can fit on a ram Drive (8GB) then your able to do 20K Not everyone can run in this config... We have way more data than we can casually story in memory. It would just be cost prohibitive. Memory tables in some situations can be a good thing though but mostly when they're overview tables. Also.. if you have a high cache hit rate you can effectively have memory tables (in theory at least). I just haven't seen anywhere near 20k qps. 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]
RE: SATA vs SCSI
Kevin, I am in the same boat that you are, I can't store anything in memory, just have too much data. I've got 2tb on one box right now, I did get a quote last week for that much memory, I think it was 4 million just for the memory. Also.. if you have a high cache hit rate you can effectively have memory tables (in theory at least). I just haven't seen anywhere near 20k qps. 20k qps is not that hard to do with all memory tables especially if you are only using the primary key and nothing else. We have one quad opteron that was pushing over 13k queries per seconds without using any memory tables at all. All queries were simple perfect selects only using the primary key. But we found that in many cases we were wasting so much time, doing so many single selects, now we are only running about 1k qps on a box, but we are doing thousands of IN queries now. So we get lower qps, but faster overall performance. Donny -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
