The original thread was how much can I get for $7k You can't fit a 15k RPM SCSI solution into $7K ;) Some of us are on a budget!
10k RPM SATA drives give acceptable performance at a good price, thats really the point here. I have never really argued that SATA is going to match SCSI performance on multidrive arrays for IO/sec. But it's all about the benjamins baby. If I told my boss we need $25k for a database machine, he'd tell me that was impossible, and I have $5k to do it. If I tell him $7k - he will swallow that. We don't _need_ the amazing performance of a 15k RPM drive config. Our biggest hit is reads, so we can buy 3xSATA machines and load balance. It's all about the application, and buying what is appropriate. I don't buy a Corvette if all I need is a malibu. Alex Turner netEconomist On 4/15/05, Dave Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:15 PM > > To: Dave Held > > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org > > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Intel SRCS16 SATA raid? > > > > Looking at the numbers, the raptor with TCQ enabled was close or > > beat the Atlas III 10k drive on most benchmarks. > > And I would be willing to bet that the Atlas 10k is not using the > same generation of technology as the Raptors. > > > Naturaly a 15k drive is going to be faster in many areas, but it > > is also much more expensive. It was only 44% better on the server > > tests than the raptor with TCQ, but it costs nearly 300% more ($538 > > cdw.com, $180 newegg.com). > > State that in terms of cars. Would you be willing to pay 300% more > for a car that is 44% faster than your competitor's? Of course you > would, because we all recognize that the cost of speed/performance > does not scale linearly. Naturally, you buy the best speed that you > can afford, but when it comes to hard drives, the only major feature > whose price tends to scale anywhere close to linearly is capacity. > > > Note also that the 15k drive was the only drive that kept up with > > the raptor on raw transfer speed, which is going to matter for WAL. > > So get a Raptor for your WAL partition. ;) > > > [...] > > The Raptor drives can be had for as little as $180/ea, which is > > quite a good price point considering they can keep up with their > > SCSI 10k RPM counterparts on almost all tests with NCQ enabled > > (Note that 3ware controllers _don't_ support NCQ, although they > > claim their HBA based queueing is 95% as good as NCQ on the drive). > > Just keep in mind the points made by the Seagate article. You're > buying much more than just performance for that $500+. You're also > buying vibrational tolerance, high MTBF, better internal > environmental controls, and a pretty significant margin on seek time, > which is probably your most important feature for disks storing tables. > An interesting test would be to stick several drives in a cabinet and > graph how performance is affected at the different price points/ > technologies/number of drives. > > __ > David B. Held > Software Engineer/Array Services Group > 200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377 > 320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings