On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Don Lewis wrote:
BTW, even with an UPS monitored by sysutils/nut, I've had a non-trival
number of ungraceful shutdowns caused by power problems (power cord
between UPS and computer falls out, sudden battery death, etc.). For
this reason, all of my machines (other than my
Going through an old thread and saw your comment...
What is the sysctl parameter to use to turn off WCE?
camcontrol modepage
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
On 26 Jun, David Magda wrote:
On Jun 26, 2005, at 22:34, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
In fact, looking at the SATA 2.x specs, each chanell there is rated at
300MB/s, which, again, if I could 'max out evenly', could seriously
blow away the SCSI bus itself ...
*If* I'm reading this right ...
On 27 Jun, Artem Kuchin wrote:
For the last 6 month i really think that if you don't need something
high-end scsi then you should go for SATA. There are test on sites
such as Tom's hardware guide and ixbt.com. They show then on
sequrncial read there is no difference between scsi and sata.
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looking at the specs between two cards, the SATA card(s) seem to rate
~100-150MB/s on each channel (if I'm reading right), with both the
3Ware and ICP cards having 4 individual channels ... looking at the
SCSI cards, they are rated at 320MB/s, but that
Hi!
As an result: If you need to have FAST disk subsystem - buy SCSI. If you need
large storage or you don't want to pay to much money - buy SATA.
Seconded.
SATA offers larger capacity per buck. If price/performance
is important, I'd seriously consider the ICP SATA cards.
Another note: if
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the last 6 month i really think that if you don't need something
high-end scsi then you should go for SATA.
Fair enough if you don't need high-end yoy shuld go lowend. But read on..
There are test on sites such as
Tom's
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:13:04 +0400
Artem Kuchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looking at the specs between two cards, the SATA card(s) seem to rate
~100-150MB/s on each channel (if I'm reading right), with both the
3Ware and ICP cards having 4 individual
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
looking at the specs between two cards, the SATA card(s) seem to rate
~100-150MB/s on each channel (if I'm reading right), with both the 3Ware
and ICP cards having 4 individual channels ... looking at the SCSI
cards, they are rated at 320MB/s, but that is total for
Martin Nilsson wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the last 6 month i really think that if you don't need something
high-end scsi then you should go for SATA.
Fair enough if you don't need high-end yoy shuld go lowend. But read on..
There are test
On Jun 26, 2005, at 22:34, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
In fact, looking at the SATA 2.x specs, each chanell there is rated at
300MB/s, which, again, if I could 'max out evenly', could seriously
blow away the SCSI bus itself ...
*If* I'm reading this right ... ?
Bus speed does not equal drive
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 11:34:22PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
looking at the specs between two cards, the SATA card(s) seem to rate
~100-150MB/s on each channel (if I'm reading right), with both the 3Ware
and ICP cards having 4 individual channels ... looking at the SCSI cards,
they
One other point worth mentioning is that on SATA all transactions are host
generated, while with SCSI devices any device can start a transaction.
Transactions can be interleaved better resulting in a higher average
throughput.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun
13 matches
Mail list logo
