[geeks] SCSI vs SATA (update)

[Kevin]

I compiled and ran 2.6.5 this on the SATA box this weekend. 
Switching from 2.4.26 to 2.6.5 made a TREMENDOUS in speed with
the SATA drive.  I don't know if it is a 2.4.x kernel issue with
that specific Silicon Image controller or just SATA in general
but things work as they should in 2.6.5.

Timing buffered disk reads:
119 MB/sec under 2.6.5 
3 MB/sec under 2.4.26

/KRM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
Kevin <kevin at mpcf.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks


-- 
"Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot."
keyserver: http://pgp.mit.edu/