On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:53:41 -0300, Roberto Novakosky <rnovak@...> wrote:

> [SATA and SCSI] ON Raid 0 SYSTEMS
> SATA150 - 4XRaid0 - 36GB 1000RPM 8MB -> 99800 kB/s
> SCSI U320 - 2XRaid0 - 73GB 15000 RPM 8MB -> 93376 kB/s
> SATA150 - 2XRaid0 - 36GB 1000 RPM 8MB -> 61488 kB/s.

Well, my experience with SATA vs. SCSI is that SATA tends to be faster.
I have a setup with 2 36G SCSI drives[1] in a raid0 vs one single
200GB SATA (100) drive, and the SATA drive is still nearly as fast as the raid0:

>>hdparm -tT /dev/md0

/dev/md0:
Timing cached reads: 676 MB in 2.00 seconds = 337.88 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 154 MB in 3.02 seconds = 50.97 MB/sec

>>hdparm -tT /dev/sdc

/dev/sdc:
Timing cached reads: 676 MB in 2.00 seconds = 337.88 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 142 MB in 3.01 seconds = 47.23 MB/sec

Of course, the hdparm -tT "benchmark" isn't exactly a good benchmark, but
it shows that SATA is, at least in the cost/performance ratio, *FAR* better
than SCSI drives that cost at least 3x as much as a SATA drive.

I haven't looked at SCA drives, yet.

[1] The disks are U320, but the controller is only U160 and plugged
into a 33Mhz PCI
port, so these disks definitely can go faster.
--
eat(this); // delicious suicide