On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 08:59:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Vivek Khera wrote:
> > >
> > > On May 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sorry that is an extremely misleading statement. SATA RAID is
> > >> perfectly acceptable if you have a hardware raid controller with a
> > >> battery backup controller.
> > >>
> > >> And dollar for dollar, SCSI will NOT be faster nor have the hard drive
> > >> capacity that you will get with SATA.
> > >
> > > Does this hold true still under heavy concurrent-write loads? I'm
> > > preparing yet another big DB server and if SATA is a better option, I'm
> > > all (elephant) ears.
> >
> > I didn't say better :). If you can afford, SCSI is the way to go.
> > However SATA with a good controller (I am fond of the LSI 150 series)
> > can provide some great performance.
>
> Basically, you can get away with cheaper hardware, but it usually
> doesn't have the reliability/performance of more expensive options.
>
> You want an in-depth comparison of how a server disk drive is internally
> better than a desktop drive:
>
> http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
BTW, someone (Western Digital?) is now offering SATA drives that carry
the same MTBF/warranty/what-not as their SCSI drives. I can't remember
if they actually claim that it's the same mechanisms just with a
different controller on the drive...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461