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
ate their needs,
> budget and boss.
>
> Larry
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Moulder Glen CONT PBFL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:30 AM
> Subject: FW: SATA vs SCSI
>
> Larry wrote:
>
> My $.02.
-
From: "Moulder Glen CONT PBFL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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 usi
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 a
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
because
every failure has the potential to cause some cascade that can become
devestating.
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: SATA vs SCSI
Were kicking around using SATA drives in software R
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
m: "Kevin Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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 ag
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
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 aro
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
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.ro
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
> some MyISAM, some InnoDB tables. Lots of reads, lots of writes (mostly
> atomic ones, insert/update one row), a few million rows per table,
> approx. 100-400 queries per
Which SATA drive works under LINUX O/S?
Kirti
-Original Message-
From: Larry Lowry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 4:06 PM
To: Fagyal Csongor; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
For cost reasons I use SATA. Does the machine already
have a
OTECTED]>
Cc: "Fagyal Csongor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
If you are talking about the WD Raptor's -- stay away. Out of 6 we
used, 3 failed. Do a few googles and you'll hear
Gary Richardson wrote:
If you are talking about the WD Raptor's -- stay away. Out of 6 we
used, 3 failed. Do a few googles and you'll hear the same from other
users.
On the other hand, the do fly. Raid10 them them on a 3ware 9500 and
you'll be amazed.
I agree on the 3Ware... Exceptionnal cards.
To
om: "Fagyal Csongor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:03 PM
> Subject: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
>
> > Hi List,
> >
> > I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
> > some
t: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Low-end SATA vs. SCSI
Hi List,
I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
some MyISAM, some InnoDB tables. Lots of reads, lots of writes (mostly
atomic ones, insert/update one row), a few million rows per table,
approx. 100-
Hi List,
I am putting in a separate disk for our MySQL (4.1.7) server. I have
some MyISAM, some InnoDB tables. Lots of reads, lots of writes (mostly
atomic ones, insert/update one row), a few million rows per table,
approx. 100-400 queries per second.
What would you say is better (with respect
23 matches
Mail list logo
