On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 11:01, Stephen wrote:
> The SCSI improvement over IDE seems overrated in the test. I would have
> expected at most a 30% improvement. Other reviews seem to point out that IDE
> performs just as well or better.
>
> See Tom's hardware:
> http://www20.tomshardware.com/storage/20020305/index.html
When TCQ becomes a reality in IDE drives, they'll have a fighting
chance, but the slower seek times and rotational speeds will still
do them in.
Also, does an 8MB cache *really* make that much of a difference?
After all, it can only cache 0.0067% of a 120GB drive, and 0.00267%
of the new 300GB disks.
Speaking of which, that 300GB HDD sounds like a dream for near-
line storage, and even for nightly backups, if it is ever put in
SBB-type packaging.
http://www20.tomshardware.com/storage/20031008/index.html
Imagine a scheme where you rapidly pg_dump to the 300GB drive,
then, at leisure, tar the dump file to tape. Stripe a few together,
and keep a month of backups on-line for quick recovery, along with
the tape archives, in case the stripeset gets wasted, too.
> "Ron Johnson" <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1066837102.12532.176.camel@haggis...
> >
> http://hardware.devchannel.org/hardwarechannel/03/10/20/1953249.shtml?tid=20
> &tid=38&tid=49
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"Adventure is a sign of incompetence"
Stephanson, great polar explorer