[geeks] SCSI vs SATA

[Kevin]

My experience with SATA is not in a server capacity, but just
FYI, i put a SATA drive (160gig 7200RPM WD, Silicon Image
controller) into a 2.4.26 linux box and so far the performance
sucks horribly.  In fact, it's so bad that i'm assuming this is
actually a kernel driver issue or something along those lines. 
Sorry i don't have any hard numbers at the moment, but last night
i copied 4.4 gig DVD image from a SCSI160 drive to this drive
and it took about 45 minutes.  This is a dual P3 450 that was
sitting idle other than the file transfer.

This box is very low priority so no real effort has been put into
finding the source of the problem, just figured i'd throw out my
experience.  I'm sure that most user's experiences with SATA are
much better and that mine is an isolated incident.

/KRM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:59:11 -0400
Bryan Fullerton <fehwalker at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've seen a couple of lab benchmarks saying SATA is close to
> SCSI in terms of performance for many things, but does anyone
> have any real-world experience using SATA drives in servers
> yet? I'm looking at getting a couple of new machines for
> various hosting things (mail, web, etc) and the pricing on SATA
> is nice, especially for the size of drives, but I'm curious if
> there are any gotchas.