> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:46:48 -0500
> netbsd@crel.us wrote:
> 
> > > 	Anonymous CVS servers (two machines)
> > > 	2 CPU [2 cpu Opteron 244 (1.8GHz)]
> > > 	8 GB Memory (8 x 1GB PC3200 DDR 400MHz ECC memory)
> > > 	150 GB Disk (4 SATA 36.7GB 10K RPM drives)
> > > 
> > > 	Build Servers (three machines)
> > > 	4 CPU [2 cpu (dual core) Opteron 265 (1.8GHz)]
> > > 	4 GB Memory (4 x 1GB PC3200 DDR 400MHz ECC memory)
> > > 	210 GB Disk (3 SATA 74GB 10K RPM 8MB Raptor drives)
> > 
> > Just out of curiosity, why were such small hard drives purchased?  Or
> > were these older ones that were already laying around?  I was just
> > wondering, because the going price for 200 GB SATA drives is only about
> > $100.  Anything smaller is considerably more expensive per GB.
> 
> The disks are 10K RPM, not 7200 or 5400 RPM as the drives you are
> suggesting. I suppose speed is a more important factor than disk size
> in those machines.

SCSI interfaces are a more important factor by far. They still handle
multiple concurrent requests far better than IDE or SATA drives.

SATA is starting to add support for queued requests, but from what I
heard last, it's not well supported yet, and not supported at all in
many models of drives.

							David