Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:55:58 -0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Mendes_Lu=EDs?= <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: Charles Sprickman <spork@fasttrackmonkey.com> Cc: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca> Subject: Re: List of fake vs. real SATA drives. Message-ID: <41A2444E.2090609@jonny.eng.br> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.61.0411221417120.787@oof.local> References: <16798.12075.465147.307112@canoe.dclg.ca> <864qjixdpi.wl%sf@FreeBSD.org> <41A1FB7D.9000308@jonny.eng.br> <Pine.OSX.4.61.0411221417120.787@oof.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Sprickman wrote: > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, [ISO-8859-1] João Carlos Mendes Luís wrote: > >> What is the practical diference? Performance? > > > I don't know how much of it to believe, since it is marketing material, > but the Seagate white paper on their site claims that all the > command-queueing stuff brings the performance very close to that of scsi. IIF they really have command queueing, I do believe. So, a bridged SATA drive will not have command queuing, right? Does FreeBSD already take advantage of this? How could I check if my SATA drivers have command queueing or not?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41A2444E.2090609>