Re: SCSI or IDE
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:22, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:45:21PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > When you've had a repair-man from the vendor use a hammer to install a
> > CPU you learn to accept that any hardware can be broken no matter how
> > well it's installed.
>
> did he also use a chainsaw to cut his finger nails?
I wish he would use a chainsaw to shave...
> > Yes. However for bulk IO it's rotational speed multiplied by the number
> > of sectors per track. A 5400rpm IDE disk with capacity 160G will
> > probably perform better for bulk IO than a 10,000rpm SCSI disk with
> > capacity 36G for this reason.
>
> The average application for most people is decidedly _not_ to have
> bulk I/O, but large numbers of very small I/O operations. Like on
> a news server, a mail server (using maildir), your typical web server
> etc. Imho the seek times in SCSI drives is faster not only due to
> rotational speed, but also because of more powerful arm moving
> motors.
When you get a medium sized server from Sun it'll probably have at least 4
fast-ethernet ports and a disk array that can barely sustain 40MB/s. Even
for straight file-serving bulk IO can become a bottleneck on such a system.
If you use a small part of a large drive you get better average access times.
If you buy two * 160G ATA 7200 drives and use the first 18G of each of them in
a RAID-0 then you should get better performance than a single 10K rpm SCSI
drive can deliver (and it'll cost less from the first online computer store I
found in google).
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: