What kind of access? Large files, small files, dedicated network?
You have to give more of a complete scenario for anyone to be able to give you realistic guidance. There are no simple answers here. -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:17 AM, justino garcia <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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/> ~
