>> >I didn't mean to say your particular drive were crap, but 200GB SATA >> >drives are low end, like it or not -- >> >> And you think an 18 GB SCSI disk just does it better because it's SCSI? > >18 GB SCSI disks are 1999 gear, so who cares? >Seagate didn't sell 200 GB SATA drives at that time. > >> Esp. in long sequential reads. > >You think SCSI drives aren't on par? Right, they're ahead. >98 MB/s for the fastest SCSI drives vs. 88 MB/s for Raptor 150 GB SATA >and 74 MB/s for the fastest other ATA drives.
Uhuh. And how do they measure that? Did they actually ran sth like... dd_rescue /dev/hda /dev/null Jan Engelhardt --
