From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx2.redhat.com (mx2.redhat.com [10.255.15.25]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4D1NDQo030179 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 21:23:14 -0400 Received: from server.klug.on.ca (server.klug.on.ca [205.189.48.131]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4D1NAhm009274 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 21:23:10 -0400 Received: from linux.interlinx.bc.ca (d38-139-100.home1.cgocable.net [72.38.139.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.klug.on.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74352803 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 21:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.75.22.1] (pc.ilinx [10.75.22.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.interlinx.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75BD104FDB for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 21:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM on SATA/PATA disks From: "Brian J. Murrell" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-0zZIAMd/N63Qlt4RU91C" Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 21:23:06 -0400 Message-Id: <1179019386.15162.53.camel@pc.ilinx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: To: linux-lvm@redhat.com --=-0zZIAMd/N63Qlt4RU91C Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 21:12 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: >=20 > The interrupt rate has nothing to do with the type of disk, and a lot to > do with the controller. There is a CPU difference between $50=20 > consumer IDE/SATA adapters, and $300 server grade IDE/SATA adapters. > You'll want the controller to support fast DMA at minimum. I thought the biggest thing that SCSI had that IDE didn't was SCSI's ability to shovel an ass-barn-load of data to a disk and the disk would go deal with it, giving up the SCSI bus so that another disk could be shovelled another ass-barn-load of data to go and deal with, and so on. Of course one has to remember it takes much much more time for the disk to actually write (or read as the case may be) the data to media than it takes to shovel the data to the disk (which it would cache locally before writing to actual media) on the bus. The contrast with IDE (or PATA as I guess the trendy name is), again as I always thought was that the IDE bus was not available for use while a disk was still pending a media I/O operation, so that with multiple devices, you could not leverage the I/O of the IDE bus using multiple devices, essentially in parallel. I guess this is where having system with multiple IDE buses and only putting a single device per bus grew from. Of course on a SCSI bus you can put many many disks -- to the capacity of the bus -- or more, but that would be silly. How does SATA fit in with all of this? Is it basically the same limitations on the bus as IDE/PATA, so that you'd really not want to put more than 1 device per bus? b. --=20 My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server. Brian J. Murrell --=-0zZIAMd/N63Qlt4RU91C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGRmh5l3EQlGLyuXARAr7SAKCPwxZcFRY2J94HGHIKUurMpYb8hQCfdDx4 IAGTSMbgCqqeLQnXpXgFd5E= =qNdh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-0zZIAMd/N63Qlt4RU91C--