* Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [070404 17:40]: > > >Good point. On another note, I am wondering why nobody's brought up the command-queuing perf benefits (yet). Is this because sata vs scsi are at > > SATAII has similar features. > > >par here? I'm finding conflicting information on this -- some calling sata's ncq mostly crap, others stating the real-world results are negligible. I'm inclined to believe SCSI's > >pretty far ahead here but am having trouble finding recent articles on this. > > What I find is, a bunch of geeks sit in a room and squabble about a few percentages one way or the other. One side feels very l33t because their white paper looks like the latest > swimsuit edition. > > Real world specs and real world performance shows that SATAII performs, very, very well. It is kind of like X86. No chip engineer that I know has ever said, X86 is elegant but guess > which chip design is conquering all others in the general and enterprise marketplace? Actually, to second that, we did have very similiar servers with SCSI/SATA drives, and I did not notice any relevant measurable difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA discs, that might have been bad luck. Andreas
