Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

[Danial Thom]

--- Mike Horwath <drechsau at Geeks.ORG> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:30:02PM -0700,
> Danial Thom wrote:
> > You should try the new 10K WD drives (the
> ones that just came
> > out). They kick butt.  Unfortunately, I'd
> have to use FreeBSD 6 to
> > use them, so I have to stick with SCSI on 4.x
> to get maximum
> > performance.
> 
> You are so completely wrong.
> 
> The 10K WD disks are fully usuable under
> FreeBSD 4.x.
> 
> In fact, I have more than 8 systems doing such,
> using 10K WD Raptor
> drives and FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE.
> 
> Where do people come up with these statements?

We come from Earth; we're just more informed. The
WD740ADFD's do NOT work on Freebsd 4.x. I'm sure
you are talking about the WD740GD. I DID say the
NEW ones. They are a lot faster than the GDs. I
used them with FreeBSD 4.x with an Areca SATA
card and they performed similarly to 15K Fujitsu
SCSIs on a heavily loaded squid system. 

Also when you are using a SATA drive that *works*
in 4.x its running in some reduced transfer mode,
so you can't expect to get optimal performance or
anything close. So "works" is almost a euphemism
for "doesn't barf", but they don't really work
well no matter how good the drive is.

For my needs, its cheaper to go with SCSI than to
buy the sata card as there's only about a $250.
difference in the SCSI  hardware, and I don't use
up my slot. Hence, the silliness of operating in
the FreeBSD camp.

Note that the drives work with 6.x but squid
performance doesn't measure up, so again, 4.x
with SCSI is the best bang for the buck choice.

DT

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com