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 l4CLgsSq006210 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 17:42:54 -0400 Received: from mailgate103.isp.belgacom.be (mailgate103.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.6.84]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l4CLgqfm013722 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 17:42:52 -0400 From: "Bertrand Renuart" Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 23:42:45 +0200 Message-ID: <001e01c794de$7a54b210$6600a8c0@idefix> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM on SATA/PATA disks 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@redhat.com Dear all, I always have been told (S/P)ATA disks should somehow be avoided in server systems. This mainly because the high rate of interrupt requests generated by the IO subsystem will constantly interrupt the CPU which then becomes unavailable for other server tasks. SCSI disks should be preferred mainly for that reason. Can someone confirm this statement? FYI, we have to upgrade one of our development machine - hence the question. This machine is mainly used to run unattended software builds -> moves large quantity of small files and requires lots of CPU. (sorry if my question is "stupid" or has already been asked many times - but couldn't find any hint anywere) Thanks