Feizhou wrote:
> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
>> Hey look at me! I'm top-posting!!! Nanny-nanny-poo-poo
>>
>> Come get me Trolls!
>
> Please do not top post. :)
>
He was probably hinting at me for top posting. Unfortunately, sometimes
I write from the blackberry, which only allows top posting. Take it up
with RIM.
>>> SATA drives typically do 60-70MBs, interleaved you>> should see 120-140MB/s on sequential. Random IO on SATA>> usually sucks too badly to even talk about...>> Eh? It cannot be worse than PATA drives now can it?> _______________________________________________Probably not, but is SATA really much worse then SCSI or SAS? I did
some testing on a dell PE 2950 of 750GB SATA's vs SAS and SCSI drives,
and the SATA drives seem to be faster at least at first glance. I don't
have good numbers from the SCSI tests, but at least for sequantial, I'm
getting a better speed off the SATAs.
Russ
Highlight