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 -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
