----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Whitener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: SATA vs SCSI
I've had this debate with myself a hundred times over the past 5 years since SATA started becoming more popular. I've come to a few simple conclusions...
I've also been dissapointed with the performance of some of the SATA raid controllers (*cough* 3ware *cough*).
I've got old dual p3 servers with SCSI arrays that can run laps around newer dual xeon servers with SATA arrays (when doing heavy disk I/O). SCSI is a more mature technology and I have to believe the drivers and controllers are a little more fine-tuned after all these years.
You get what you pay for... Yes, SCSI is more expensive, but it offers better performance under heavier load. When you start dealing with gigs of data, whether it be in a database or an email spool or whatever, you'll see a measurable difference. SCSI really shines when you're moving serious amounts of data.
To sum it up: If you NEED high performance, you need scsi. However, If you just WANT good performance but are remotely concerned about price, consider SATA.
When you have to have performance, you have to have SCSI ... plain and simple. Just my two cents.
Daniel
On 5/12/05, Larry Lowry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have been using the controllers built into the motherboards. I know they are not as good as some dedicated cards but they work well enough for us. I prefer the nVidia nForce4 Ultra Chipsets. They have a nice raid setup. We needed a cheap box for data server but with a lot of tempory disk space. A system with the K8N Neo4 motherboard, Athlon 64 3500+, 2gb memory and 5 250gb sata drives yields a fast box with 1tb storage. All for under $1500. I know this is not an Enterprise DB box but again everyone has to evaluate their needs, budget and boss.
Larry
----- Original Message ----- From: "Moulder Glen CONT PBFL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:30 AM Subject: FW: SATA vs SCSI
Larry wrote:
My $.02. As I agree SCSI has had a reputation for being a more solid enterprise type drive, everyone's mileage varies. We have moved to using all SATA drives in our newer servers. I have to admit most of our databases are smaller than what many on this list have. All our db's are under 500 megs. My reality is this. If a SATA drive does fail, so far only 1 over the last 18 months, it is cheap and easy to replace. I have all my setups raided so we have no lost data. At the same time I have several Hitachi/IBM SCSI drives...
What controller do you use for RAIDing the SATAs?
Glen
-- 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]
-- 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]
