Re: PATA sometimes faster than SATA?
- From: "A. J. Moss" <ajmoss_throwaway_account_001@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
On 28 Mar, 19:36, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It ought to be - reduces the chances of a single write hitting two
disks on the same ribbon.
I bet it makes sod all difference in practice though. If you have time
to experiment with benchmarking different configs, would you post them
back here?
Clearly, the unavoidable limiting factor is the PCI bandwidth.
Re. the card accessing two disks on one channel at a time: this
wouldn't matter if the channels were ATA-133 (which has the same
theoretical bandwidth as PCI), but is a further (avoidable)
bottleneck with ATA-100.
I've already loaded over 1TB onto the RAID, and I'd rather not
have to move that data back again after benchmarking the RAID-0
with different stripe sizes. What I will do is benchmark a RAID-0
of four 300GB Seagate 7200.8 disks (which I have available), and
report back.
.
- References:
- PATA sometimes faster than SATA?
- From: A. J. Moss
- Re: PATA sometimes faster than SATA?
- From: Jaimie Vandenbergh
- PATA sometimes faster than SATA?
- Prev by Date: Re: Watching media PC to TV
- Next by Date: Re: Recommended size of OS partition?
- Previous by thread: Re: PATA sometimes faster than SATA?
- Next by thread: Re: PATA sometimes faster than SATA?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|