On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Joerg Schilling < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You seem to missunderstand drive physics. > > With modern drives, seek times are not a dominating factor. It is the > latency > time that is rather important and this is indeed 1/rotanilnal-speed. > > On the other side you did missunderstand another important fact in drive > physics: > > The sustained transfer speed of a drive is proportional to the linear data > density on the medium. > > The third mistake you make is to see that confuse the effects from the > drive interface type with the effects from different drive geometry. The > only > coincidence here is that the drive geometry is typically updated more > frequently for SATA drives than it is for SAS drives. This way, you benefit > from the higher data density of a recent SATA drive and get a higher > sustained > data rate. > > BTW: I am not saying it makes no sense to buy SAS drives but it makes sense > to > look at _all_ important parameters. Power consumption is a really important > issue here and the reduced MTBF from using more disks is another one. > > Jörg > > -- > Please, give me a list of enterprises currently using SATA drives for their database workloads, vmware workloads... hell any workload besides email archiving, lightly used cifs shares, or streaming sequential transfers of large files. I'm glad you can sit there with a spec sheet and tell me how you think things are going to work. I can tell you from real-life experience you're not even remotely correct in your assumptions. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
