I've fairly extensively (although not necessarily scientifically) tested SATA 150 vs. SCSI U320 and find that if you're doing a lot of random reads and writes (such as with a database server), SCSI provides nearly 5x the performance as SATA so, for us, it's well worth the additional expense.
It's also my experience that even the best SATA drives seem to be disposable. There's a huge difference in reliability and life expectancy between SATA and SCSI drives because they put a bit more quality into SCSI drives as they are expected to perform in an enterprise environment. With RAID arrays and hotswap bays, it's easy enough to deal with SATA's unreliability, but it's always best to not have to swap and rebuild because every failure has the potential to cause some cascade that can become devestating. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:29 PM Subject: SATA vs SCSI Were kicking around using SATA drives in software RAID0 config. The price diff is significant. You can also get SATA drives in 10k RPM form now., Kevin -- Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator)! - visit http://rojo.com. See irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want to chat. Rojo is Hiring! - http://www.rojonetworks.com/JobsAtRojo.html Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA AIM/YIM - sfburtonator, Web - http://peerfear.org/ GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
