Does anyone have any definitive information re these 2 technologies?

Traditionally I've always used SCSI drives, as many years ago we
discovered nthat although the specs if EIDE looked good on paper, in
practice they were sub-optimal.

Whilst I could do my own tests (have just installed a Windows/SATA
box), I figure others here may have already done the investigation
work.

FWIW I'd just be looking at a little IBM x306 with RAID level 1 via the
integrated RAID SATA - nothing too punishing, only around 50 users
(anything more and I'd just feel safer with SCSI), and no external
cache to the drive.

Once more, on paper I see transfer rates of 1.5Gbs vs 320 on U320 SCSI
drives, but slower RPMs on the SATA to the 15K SCSI's, so I'm guessing
(know in my gut?) that SCSI makes sense, but ... Any comments from
people who have kept more abreast of hardware than I have are welcome
:-)


Ross Ferris
Stamina Software
Visage - talks your language

Ross,

Google this group for "hdparm" and look at the "poweredge raid
performance" thread... I ran some linux hdparm SATA vs SCSI tests on
various systems in Sept 2004 and posted the results. My conclusion is
that 3Ware 9500 series SATA controllers and WD Raptor drives do the
appropriate "command queueing" SCSI stuff, are faster and way cheaper
than SCSI. SCSI is dead, at least in the linux amd/intel type market.
However I'm sure there is a place for the $20,000+ Clarion-type SCSI or
FC arrays in the big-iron AIX/Solaris/HPUX market... but probably not
for long

/Scott Ballinger
Pareto Corporation
Edmonds WA USA
206 713 6006