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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
