Re: [OT] SATA vs. SCSI
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 05:42:25PM -0700, L. Couture wrote:
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:42:25 -0700
> From: "L. Couture" <cooch@shaw.ca>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051006)
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [OT] SATA vs. SCSI
>
>
> >>>I am shooting for top notch reliability.
> >>SCSI. SATA's fast, but not as reliable, IMHO.
> >
> >SCSI is *expensive*.
> >
> >Unless you have huge databases that need the speed of 10K or 15K
> >RPM drives, SATA is the way to go.
>
> The days of SCSI ruling are rapidly coming to an end.
>
> Now that SATA has NCQ and TCQ native (if you are using the proper
> controller), 5 year warranties, 10K rpm, and sub 10ms access times, the
What's use from NCQ, if accordingly to
http://linux.yyz.us/sata/software-status.html#tcq
<cite>
"Queueing support is not currently available in any release kernel."
</cite>
Best wishes
--
Alexei Chetroi
Smile... Tomorrow will be worse. (c) Murphy's Law
Reply to: