l Whitener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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 dissapoi
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 wi
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 sp
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
> com
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 numbe
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/mys
ability 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:
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: SATA vs SCSI
I've fairly extensively (although not neces
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 d
"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
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
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 h
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.
Mem
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,
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
