Which Combination Is faster?

[Eric Robinson]

Your opinions please!

Which is faster:

(6) U320 15K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-X controller.

or

(6) SATA-300 10K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-E controller.

Based on my understanding of the bottlenecks, I would tend to think the 10K
SATA array on the PCI-E controller would be faster than the 15K SCSI array
on the PCI-X controller.

Your thoughts?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Your opinions please!

Which is faster:

(6) U320 15K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-X controller.

or

(6) SATA-300 10K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-E controller.

Based on my understanding of the bottlenecks, I would tend to think the 10K
SATA array on the PCI-E controller would be faster than the 15K SCSI array
on the PCI-X controller.

Your thoughts?

Simple.
The fastest drives on the fastest controller on the fastest interface.
Anymore pressing questions?

 

[Peter]

Your opinions please!

Which is faster:

(6) U320 15K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-X controller.

or

(6) SATA-300 10K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-E
controller.

Based on my understanding of the bottlenecks, I would tend to think the
10K SATA array on the PCI-E controller would be faster than the 15K SCSI
array on the PCI-X controller.

Your thoughts?

Instead of asking "which one is faster", you should ask "which one is
better".
That change would broaden a range of useful responses.
It's almost as good as "My PC is broken, does anyone have idea how to fix
it?".




Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

 

[Arno Wagner]

Instead of asking "which one is faster", you should ask "which one is
better".

I completely agree with that.

That change would broaden a range of useful responses.
It's almost as good as "My PC is broken, does anyone have idea how to fix
it?".

One thing to consider is that PCI-X is by now outdated technology.
Not that it is slow, depending on what the X means in your case.
66MHz/64bit PCI-X has a bandwidth of about 500MB/s and is well up
to the taks of transporting the data your disks can deliver.

Another question is the speed of the controllers.

A thirs question is what you do if your controller breaks in 2 years.
Will you still get a PCI-X replacement?

....

Arno

 

[Eric Robinson]

Instead of asking "which one is faster", you should ask "which one is

better".

Okay, then which combination is better for an SQL database used by 400
users, where database usage consists of roughly equal numbers of small
(1-4K) SELECTs and UPDATEs.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Okay, then which combination is better for an SQL database used by 400
users, where database usage consists of roughly equal numbers of small
(1-4K) SELECTs and UPDATEs.

That one is even simpler.

 

[Eric Robinson]

For what it's worth, this benchmark article answered the question to my
satisfaction. Other people might also find it helpful.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/23/pci_express_battles_pci/

 

[Eric Gisin]

Neither PCI-E or PCI-X would be a bottleneck.
IO/s is the only issue, and 15K SCSI will beat 10K SATA.

BTW, Tom's hardware will be of any help on storage issues.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Okay, then which combination is better for an SQL database used by 400
users, where database usage consists of roughly equal numbers of small
(1-4K) SELECTs and UPDATEs.

I would say that depends on the controller. If you can get similar
ones for PCI-X and PCI-E than go with PCI-E, since it is likely
around for some time. PCI-X is at the end of its lifetime.

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

For what it's worth, this benchmark article answered the question to my
satisfaction.

Hardly on the point of SCSI versus SATA.

 

[Eric Gisin]

correction to my last post:
BTW, Tom's hardware will NOT be of any help on storage issues.

I would say that depends on the controller. If you can get similar
ones for PCI-X and PCI-E than go with PCI-E, since it is likely
around for some time. PCI-X is at the end of its lifetime.

Utterly clueless as usual.

 

[Garfield]

I would say that depends on the controller. If you can get similar
ones for PCI-X and PCI-E than go with PCI-E, since it is likely
around for some time.

PCI-X is at the end of its lifetime.

(Not in several years although the fastest pre-announced standard was cancelled).

PCI years before now and look, it's *still* here.

 

[Garfield]

I completely agree with that.

Usually you don't have a clue about what you agree with, babblehead.

Probably not since obviously he doesn't understand what he asks about.

One thing to consider is that PCI-X is by now outdated technology.
Nope.

Not that it is slow, depending on what the X means in your case.

It means just X, babblehead. It depends on the number behind the X.

66MHz/64bit PCI-X has a bandwidth of about 500MB/s

Which isn't even the fastest standard within PCI-X 1.0
And then there is PCI-X 2.0

and is well up to the taks of transporting the data your disks can deliver.

Most of the time. Also depends on how the mirroring is done.

Another question is the speed of the controllers.

A thirs question is what you do if your controller breaks in 2 years.
Will you still get a PCI-X replacement?

Will the professional market stop existing.
(No, no question mark).

 

[J. Clarke]

Your opinions please!

Which is faster:

(6) U320 15K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-X controller.

or

(6) SATA-300 10K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-E
controller.

Based on my understanding of the bottlenecks, I would tend to think the
10K SATA array on the PCI-E controller would be faster than the 15K SCSI
array on the PCI-X controller.

Your thoughts?

At that level it depends far more on the details of the controller design
than on the interfaces.

 

[Peter]

Instead of asking "which one is faster", you should ask "which one is

Okay, then which combination is better for an SQL database used by 400
users, where database usage consists of roughly equal numbers of small
(1-4K) SELECTs and UPDATEs.

I would bet on 15K U320 drives and PCI-X controller for SQL database, as
random IO is most likely going to be a performance bottleneck. That assumes
that both (drives and controller) are relatively new and good quality.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

 

[Odie]

Your opinions please!

Which is faster:

(6) U320 15K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-X controller.

or

(6) SATA-300 10K drives in a RAID 10 array, attached to a PCI-E controller.

Based on my understanding of the bottlenecks, I would tend to think the 10K
SATA array on the PCI-E controller would be faster than the 15K SCSI array
on the PCI-X controller.

Your thoughts?

Eric,


Having digested the random responses to you initial question, SCSI
remains more efficient *and* way, way more reliable than any current
SATA offering, although the speed difference might have to be measured
with a clock capable of measurements in milliseconds.

For your scenario (or for practically any SQL server setup) SCSI is
going to be better.

Having adequate memory to cache as much of the actual database files as
possible will further boost performance, although for absolute security
and file integrity cacheing may be disabled - I don't have sufficient
details from your post about the security requirements.

The controller itself will probably be even more important than the
choice of drives.



Odie