Feizhou wrote:
> Ruslan Sivak wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Hence the smiley.
>
I know you meant it in a joking way. I'm kinda pissed at RIM though for
not letting me reply properly on my blackberry.
>>>>>>> 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.>> sequential will be better than SCSI due to the packing on those > platters which make up for the lack in rpm. NCQ should even up the > random ability of SATA disks versus SCSI drives but that support has > only become available lately on Linux and you also need the right > hardware (besides the right disks).How would I know if my system is using NCQ? I think my drives and card
should support it.
Russ
Highlight