From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 22 20:17:09 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2E816A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:17:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from peedub.jennejohn.org (Jad6b.j.pppool.de [85.74.173.107])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231A143D46
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:17:09 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from garyj@jennejohn.org)
Received: from jennejohn.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by peedub.jennejohn.org (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAMKH7A6014442
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:17:07 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from garyj@jennejohn.org)
Message-Id: <200411222017.iAMKH7A6014442@peedub.jennejohn.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.0 06/18/2004 with nmh-1.0.4
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:19:38 EST."
             <Pine.OSX.4.61.0411221417120.787@oof.local> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:17:07 +0100
From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:31:56 +0000
Subject: Re: List of fake vs. real SATA drives. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org>
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:17:10 -0000

Charles Sprickman writes:
> I don't know how much of it to believe, since it is marketing material,=20
> but the Seagate white paper on their site claims that all the=20
> command-queueing stuff brings the performance very close to that of scsi.
> 

In my experience ATA drives really lack when it comes to seek times
and contention, e.g. heavy copying between 2 drives while trying to
do normal accesses to one of them. SCSI drives somehow manage to more
gracefully handle that sort of thing. Probably a benefit of the Tagged
Queuing which they pretty much all support.

---
Gary Jennejohn / garyj[at]jennejohn.org gj[at]freebsd.org garyj[at]denx.de