public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mogens Valentin <monz@danbbs.dk>
To: Linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SCSI vs SATA considerations
Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 22:22:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <409D4193.6144664B@danbbs.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200405081903.i48J3CB23261@www.watkins-home.com

Guy wrote:
> 
> 34.4MB/s may be the correct speed for the disk.
> What do the specs say?
> 
> My disks are running at 80MB/s and 40MB/s.  I have 17 of them on 3 buses.
> But any 1 disk only gives me about 19MB/s, regardless of which bus it is
> on.
> But if I test 2 disks I get about 37MB/s total, 3 or more gives me about
> 38MB/s total on the 40MB/s bus.  The 80MB/s bus does better, 70+MB/s with
> 4 or more disks.  The only time there is a real difference in performance
> between the 40 and 80MB/s buses it during a RAID re-build or when I test
> disk performance.  In real life, disk access is random, and the random
> read rate of my disks is about 3MB/s.

I wrote:

>> I still get only 34.4 MB/s, though (misspelled the speed in first post).
>> Tried forcing 80MB/s, disabling domain validation, and forcing
>> termination on the 29160, no change.

Yes, something to think about. Figures well with i.e. copying files
locally on one SCSI disk. Maybe I cheated myself looking at the SATA
performance, where hdparm -t gives me 54MB/s; of cause not a real-life
situation.
However, doing the same filecopy on SATA is just so much faster.
Of cause, filesystem and disk caching may have eluded me, so the
filecopy was not actually complete, the action still pending a
filesystem flush.

I started this writing saying I need to figure out which disk subsystem
is best for me. This is not a multiuser system, or a highload database
server.
SATA may be/look fast, but (SATA v.1 on interfaces like Sil321a) is
still little more than ATA revisited, whereas SCSI in real-life work may
still provide better results, especially when running 3-4 OS's in
vmware.

It's problem for me, as I'm not running this system on either scsi,
sata, or a combination of both, as yet...
Though I've been using SCSI UW for some years now, initially, SATA just
seems somewhat faster.  Geez, more thinking left to do :-

Thanks for the practical points of views.

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin
Networking, Security
www.danbbs.dk/~monz
Phone +45 32 525 878


The more things change, the more they stay the same.
  -- unknown

       reply	other threads:[~2004-05-08 20:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <200405081903.i48J3CB23261@www.watkins-home.com>
2004-05-08 20:22 ` Mogens Valentin [this message]
     [not found] <200405071455.i47EtBB18653@www.watkins-home.com>
2004-05-08 18:52 ` SCSI vs SATA considerations Mogens Valentin
2004-05-09  2:25   ` Douglas Gilbert
2004-05-07 11:56 Mogens Valentin
2004-05-07 12:13 ` Matthew Wilcox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=409D4193.6144664B@danbbs.dk \
    --to=monz@danbbs.dk \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox