I hate to drag this thread on, but... Erik Trimble wrote: > OK, we cut off this thread now. > > > Bottom line here is that when it comes to making statements about SATA > vs SAS, there are ONLY two statements which are currently absolute: > > (1) a SATA drive has better GB/$ than a SAS drive >
In general, yes. > (2) a SAS drive has better throughput and IOPs than a SATA drive > Disagree. We proved that the transport layer protocol has no bearing on throughput or iops. Several vendors offer drives which are identical in all respects except for transport layer protocol: SAS or SATA. You can choose either transport layer protocol and the performance remains the same. > This is comparing apples to apples (that is, drives in the same > generation, available at the same time): > Add same size. One common mis-correlation in this thread is comparing 3.5" SATA disks against 2.5" SAS disks -- there is a big difference in the capacity, power consumption, and seek time as the disk diameter changes. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
