On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 21:12 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > > The interrupt rate has nothing to do with the type of disk, and a lot to > do with the controller. There is a CPU difference between $50 > consumer IDE/SATA adapters, and $300 server grade IDE/SATA adapters. > You'll want the controller to support fast DMA at minimum. I thought the biggest thing that SCSI had that IDE didn't was SCSI's ability to shovel an ass-barn-load of data to a disk and the disk would go deal with it, giving up the SCSI bus so that another disk could be shovelled another ass-barn-load of data to go and deal with, and so on. Of course one has to remember it takes much much more time for the disk to actually write (or read as the case may be) the data to media than it takes to shovel the data to the disk (which it would cache locally before writing to actual media) on the bus. The contrast with IDE (or PATA as I guess the trendy name is), again as I always thought was that the IDE bus was not available for use while a disk was still pending a media I/O operation, so that with multiple devices, you could not leverage the I/O of the IDE bus using multiple devices, essentially in parallel. I guess this is where having system with multiple IDE buses and only putting a single device per bus grew from. Of course on a SCSI bus you can put many many disks -- to the capacity of the bus -- or more, but that would be silly. How does SATA fit in with all of this? Is it basically the same limitations on the bus as IDE/PATA, so that you'd really not want to put more than 1 device per bus? b. -- My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server. Brian J. Murrell
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
