okay thanks so if it were conneccted to 10 gbe network, and it was raid 0 two disks, on both the san and local controller.
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > But, assuming OP has one local disk attached via 3gbps SATA II, and havsa > single SATA II disk in a SAN (also connected at 3gbs) then the 1gbps network > would probably be the bottleneck. > > Cheers > Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Brutsche [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, 16 May 2010 1:38 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Which is faster: iSCSI to Windows box over 1Gb or local SATA > storage with intel ICH9? > > That's not a simple question to answer. You left out several major > implementation details in the form of the hardware and software > configuration of the storage box. > > It might be faster. It might be slower. It might be the same. > > On 5/15/2010 10:14 PM, justino garcia wrote: > > Which is faster: iSCSI to Windows box over 1Gb or local SATA storage > > with intel ICH9? > > Is local storage faster, or is Network file based storage faster? > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > -- Justin IT-TECH ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
