Feizhou wrote:
Ruslan Sivak wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Hey look at me! I'm top-posting!!! Nanny-nanny-poo-poo
Come get me Trolls!
Please do not top post. :)
He was probably hinting at me for top posting. Unfortunately,
sometimes I write from the blackberry, which only allows top
posting. Take it up with RIM.
Hence the smiley.
I know you meant it in a joking way. I'm kinda pissed at RIM though for
not letting me reply properly on my blackberry.
SATA drives typically do 60-70MBs, interleaved you
should see 120-140MB/s on sequential. Random IO on SATA
usually sucks too badly to even talk about...
Eh? It cannot be worse than PATA drives now can it?
_______________________________________________
Probably not, but is SATA really much worse then SCSI or SAS? I did
some testing on a dell PE 2950 of 750GB SATA's vs SAS and SCSI
drives, and the SATA drives seem to be faster at least at first
glance. I don't have good numbers from the SCSI tests, but at least
for sequantial, I'm getting a better speed off the SATAs.
sequential will be better than SCSI due to the packing on those
platters which make up for the lack in rpm. NCQ should even up the
random ability of SATA disks versus SCSI drives but that support has
only become available lately on Linux and you also need the right
hardware (besides the right disks).
How would I know if my system is using NCQ? I think my drives and card
should support it.
Russ
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
