SAS v SATA

[richard.pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org (Richard Pieri)]

On Mar 9, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
> 
> Does anyone have an informed opinion as to the relative merits of SAS v 
> SATA disk drives in a Linux box doing long sequential I/O for a small 
> number of processes? It looks like the cost/GB is about a factor of 3 more 
> for SAS (both drives at 10,000RPM), and if the performance difference is 
> only going to manifest itself in random I/O, or when many processes are 
> competing for the drive, I can skip it for my current application.

I'd say skip SAS for this particular application.  You (probably) don't need the extra fault tolerance and recovery options, the expansion capabilities, nor the full-duplex I/O performance.

--Rich P.