Scsi vs Sata Which one would be better for me ?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Piru wrote:
If it's performance you're after get one of those fast flash drives. They're way faster than SCSI.

Also considering offloading the CPU? (as SCSI does)
I mean, quite a while ago I had a 36x (or something) IDE cd burner. A friend of me had a 4x SCSI cd burner, which was waaay faster (and more reliable) than my cd burner.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Piru wrote:
@Speelgoedmannetje

Also considering offloading the CPU? (as SCSI does)

You think SATA uses PIO? You seriously need to update yourself ;-)

I'll shut up now, shan't I?  :oops:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Zac67 wrote:
- Parallel SCSI is dead
- SAS is great for heavy load (high RPM for high throughput and low seek latency, tagged command queueing is also a good solution for multiple simultaneous I/O jobs) but very expensive and runs hot

Well, since Windows loves to swap...
I read somewhere someone used a small and fast SCSI harddisk for the OS, and a big (S)ATA harddisk for the rest.
Sounds logical to me.