IDE is single stream connection
SCSI is multiple stream
what is SATA?

In terms of performance, if I replace my servers with SATA based servers -
will I take a performance hit - even a little?

Thanks.

YES!

On 23/11/2005 "Alan Wen" <alan.wen@apachecorp.com> wrote:
>IDE is single stream connection
>SCSI is multiple stream
>what is SATA?
>
>In terms of performance, if I replace my servers with SATA based servers -
>will I take a performance hit - even a little?
>
>Thanks.
>
>

--
----
Y.

Alan Wen wrote:
> IDE is single stream connection
> SCSI is multiple stream
> what is SATA?
>
> In terms of performance, if I replace my servers with SATA based
> servers - will I take a performance hit - even a little?
>
> Thanks.

It depends on many things. Current SCSI drives on a current top line SCSI
controller will outperform the best SATA drives and controller for most SQL
servers, heavily loaded file servers, etc. Anywhere you have a lot of
clients accessing random data simutaneously. In a lightly loaded server or
normal domain controller with top line SATA drives and a top line controller
(not the onboard software controllers on current motherboards) I don't think
you'd see any difference that was noticable. Check put these SATA
controllers

http://www.3ware.com/

They are really nice, very fast. Their sales rep told me he wouldn't
recommend them over SCSI for a busy SQL server. He said they will be there
in a year but not now. His honesty was refreshing. I will be trying their
stuff.

Kerry

Alan Wen wrote:

>IDE is single stream connection
>SCSI is multiple stream
>what is SATA?
>
>In terms of performance, if I replace my servers with SATA based servers -
>will I take a performance hit - even a little?
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>
SCSI needs multi-stream to efficiently handle the multiple HDs that can be
on a single SCSI bus. SATA can only attach to a single HD, so multi-stream
doesn't matter as much.

Yes, I know about Command Queueing; SCSI defines TCQ and SATA defines NCQ,
and both have value in data servers. But, for most desktop/laptop PCs,
xCQ won't show much gain today.

--
Cheers, Bob

It all depends on your computer.
I just switched from SCSI to SATA.
In Win XP Dual Core 3.0 with 1 GB RAM , the computer
loads faster, Windows Explorer opens faster, manipulating
files seems to be much better.
SCSI has larger transfer rate, with 10,000 RPM drives they
are great.
I got tired paying high price for those drives, while SATA2
with 10,000 RPM are not much cheaper, but they have
much larger capacity.

While on my Win98 machine 3.0 CPU with 512 RAM, Western
Digital don't support their SATA drives in Win98.
I noticed lots performance drop from SCSI.
My old Win98 machine was 1.8 CPU with 512 RAM and
was much faster copying large files using SCSI.
I wish I didn't switch, but Adaptec are dropping Win98,
so I am switching it to IDE from SATA. One of the new
drives was defective, I have to wait until tomorrow
to do the final switch.

There is also SATA 2, which has higher transfer rate
than SATA.
Use Google Advance search and search for "SCSI vs SATA".




"Alan Wen" <alan.wen@apachecorp.com> wrote in message
news:Of$ib4I8FHA.444@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> IDE is single stream connection
> SCSI is multiple stream
> what is SATA?
>
> In terms of performance, if I replace my servers with SATA based servers -
> will I take a performance hit - even a little?
>
> Thanks.
>