[Beowulf] distributing storage amongst compute nodes
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pbm.comMon Oct 22 13:03:29 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] distributing storage amongst compute nodes
- Next message: [Beowulf] distributing storage amongst compute nodes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:04:19PM -0400, Jeffrey B. Layton wrote: > I wouldn't even say that. Even though Garth's data shows that > SATA drives are actually a bit better than SCSI and FC drives, > I have a tendency to say that they are all equal. Integraters tell me that right now Enterprise SATA drives are significantly better than ordinary SATA drives, while not costing much more. One also pointed out that in previous generations, the underlying disk technology was the same, but at the moment SCSI drives are on the previous generation of recording tecnology, hence the lower densities for SCSI drives. So studying the past might not work very well for drives you buy today. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] distributing storage amongst compute nodes
- Next message: [Beowulf] distributing storage amongst compute nodes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list