RAID 5 vs. single SCSI drive?

[Carlos Moreno]

Hi,

I'm trying to decide between these two options, for a server
running Linux (RedHat 9, most likely), which will be used as
a database server, running PostgreSQL (version 7.4, most
likely).

We are talking about peak load in the order of 20 or 30 inserts
per second, with clients connecting from three different
places.

The machine is a dual Athlon 2GHz with 1GB of memory.

Now, the big question is: what hard disk configuration should
I choose for this server?

I've been always reluctant to use SCSI; but I keep reading
that for server use, it's almost like it's not even a question,
it must be SCSI, period, by definition.

Considering the option of 3 IDE drives with RAID 5, how do
things compare? 3 IDE's with RAID 5 are a bit more expensive
than a single SCSI (we're talking about renting a dedicated
server, so we're talking monthly fees).

For this kind of use, should I be expecting better performance
from the IDE-based RAID 5 configuration?

What about two or three SCSI drives without RAID? Will this
be better than the IDE RAID 5 option? (2 SCSI drives of
36G each cost almost the same (a little bit more) than the
three IDE's with RAID5 configuration).

Thanks for any comments,

Carlos
--

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm trying to decide between these two options, for a server
running Linux (RedHat 9, most likely), which will be used as
a database server, running PostgreSQL (version 7.4, most
likely).

We are talking about peak load in the order of 20 or 30 inserts
per second, with clients connecting from three different places.

The machine is a dual Athlon 2GHz with 1GB of memory.

Now, the big question is: what hard disk
configuration should I choose for this server?

I've been always reluctant to use SCSI; but I keep
reading that for server use, it's almost like it's not
even a question, it must be SCSI, period, by definition.

Thats just plain wrong. The world's moved on.

Considering the option of 3 IDE drives with RAID 5,
how do things compare? 3 IDE's with RAID 5 are a
bit more expensive than a single SCSI

And MUCH more reiable.

(we're talking about renting a dedicated
server, so we're talking monthly fees).

For this kind of use, should I be expecting better
performance from the IDE-based RAID 5 configuration?

The reason for RAID5 aint performance, its reliability.

What about two or three SCSI drives without RAID?
Will this be better than the IDE RAID 5 option?

Not for reliability.

(2 SCSI drives of 36G each cost almost the same (a little
bit more) than the three IDE's with RAID5 configuration).

There's more involved than cost.

 

[Carlos Moreno]

Thats just plain wrong. The world's moved on.

Glad to hear that!

However, I can't find references where SCSI is not a
definite winner when we're talking about servers. Am I
looking at the wrong place? Or are those comparisons
single SCSI vs. single IDE?

The reason for RAID5 aint performance, its reliability.

Oh... I thought it was both. I was under the impression
that RAID 0 improves performance (half the data goes to
one drive, half to the other one, simultaneously), RAID 1
for reliability (same data goes to or comes from both
drives), and RAID 5 for both performance and reliability.
Am I mistaken on this? What would be the advantage of
RAID 5 over RAID 1 then?

There's more involved than cost.

Yes, of course. I mentioned the cost as a way of
establishing that "everything else is almost equal", so
that I would now decide purely based on technical merits.

That is, if two options cost the same, then a minor
advantage in one of them would make you decide. If
option A is twice as expensive, then you probably would
not go for it just for a 5% increase on performance
(well, it obviously depends on the application, but
you get the idea...)

Thanks!

Carlos
--

 

[Will Dormann]

Considering the option of 3 IDE drives with RAID 5, how do
things compare? 3 IDE's with RAID 5 are a bit more expensive
than a single SCSI (we're talking about renting a dedicated
server, so we're talking monthly fees).

For this kind of use, should I be expecting better performance
from the IDE-based RAID 5 configuration?

Unless you have a fancy (expensive) RAID controller, the write
performance will be slower with RAID5 than a single drive. Though I
don't know for sure, I can't see anybody making a high-end IDE RAID5
controller. ("high-end" and "IDE RAID" together seems a bit of an
oxymoron).

If you're on a budget, a simple mirror will give you better write
performance than a 3-drive RAID 5 array. If you need high performance
+ redundancy, consider a RAID 1+0 array. (or a 0+1 array, if the
former isn't available)


-WD


-WD

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Glad to hear that!

However, I can't find references where SCSI is not
a definite winner when we're talking about servers.

Winner in what respect ? Clearly on price
alone, thats obvious from any pricelist.

Am I looking at the wrong place?

Its not something that gets a hell
of a lot of coverage on the web.

Or are those comparisons single SCSI vs. single IDE?

Certainly quite a few like with storagereview they are.

Oh... I thought it was both.

Nope, RAID5 doesnt blow your sox off performance
wise, its primarily about reliability, maximum up time.

I was under the impression that RAID 0 improves
performance (half the data goes to one drive, half
to the other one, simultaneously),

Thats the theory, anyway. The reality can be
surprisingly dissapointing with modern hard drives.

Its mainly useful for stuff like raw video capture when
the speed of individual drives is just a bit too inadequate.

RAID 1 for reliability (same data goes to or comes from both
drives), and RAID 5 for both performance and reliability.

Nar. RAID5 splits the data over the drives in a more complex
way and uses proper ECCs to allow loss of one of the set
of drives, it uses more than 2 drives. There is a real performance
penalty with the calculation of the ECCs unless thats done in
hardware. The main advantage is that individual drive failure
has no real visible impact at all, so you get maximum availability.

Am I mistaken on this?
Yes.

What would be the advantage of RAID 5 over RAID 1 then?

Maximum availability. With a performance and purchase price penalty.

And there is a lot more than just 5 and 1 for reliability.

Yes, of course. I mentioned the cost as a way of
establishing that "everything else is almost equal", so
that I would now decide purely based on technical merits.

Trouble is that the difference in price can be ten times
between say a single 250GB IDE and a SCSI RAID5 array,
with very similar performance. Five times when comparing
two of those 250GB IDEs with the SCSI RAID5 array.

That is, if two options cost the same,

They never do with SCSI. Its always more expensive,
sometimes much more expensive like with the example above.

then a minor advantage in one of them would make you decide.

Sure, but thats not the real world.

If option A is twice as expensive, then you probably would
not go for it just for a 5% increase on performance

Yep, and thats the main reason that that particular
application is no longer SCSI without question.

(well, it obviously depends on the application, but you get the idea...)

Yep. But the reality is that the SCSI route is always substantially
more expensive, SCSI RAID5 doesnt necessarily give you any
better performance over modern IDE drives.

The most expensive route does bring with it some real advantages,
but thats mostly with a proper integrated hotswap package that
allows you to carry on regardless with a single drive failure and
swap the failed drive at your convenience. At a very high price.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Glad to hear that!

However, I can't find references where SCSI is not a
definite winner when we're talking about servers. Am I
looking at the wrong place? Or are those comparisons
single SCSI vs. single IDE?


Oh... I thought it was both.
I was under the impression
that RAID 0 improves performance (half the data goes to
one drive, half to the other one, simultaneously), RAID 1
for reliability (same data goes to or comes from both
drives), and RAID 5 for both performance and reliability.
Am I mistaken on this?

Well, that IS the theory.
Unfortunately, practice doesn't seem to know about that.

 

[J.Clarke]

software RAID-5 eats up CPU heaps...

However with a dual 2 GHz Athlon setup he's got heaps of CPU available.

 

[Rita_A_Berkowitz]

Though I don't know for sure, I can't see anybody making a high-end IDE RAID5
controller. ("high-end" and "IDE RAID" together seems a bit of an
oxymoron).

Will, you are 99.9% correct with the exception that you forgot to add that
there are absolutely no "high-end" IDE-RAID controllers on the market and
probably never will be. Go SCSI young man, Go SCSI and never look back.



Rita

 

[Marc de Vries]

Will, you are 99.9% correct with the exception that you forgot to add that
there are absolutely no "high-end" IDE-RAID controllers on the market and
probably never will be. Go SCSI young man, Go SCSI and never look back.

You forgot to add that SCSI RAID5 controllers are also SLOW when
writing. ALL Raid5 solutions are slow when writing.

XOR calculations give a lot of overhead. BOTH on IDE and SCSI Raid5
controllers. The calculations are exactly the same. The processors
that do the calculations are also the same.
Thus the overhead that causes the slowdown in RAID5 is also the same.

There are reasons to choose SCSI, but this is NOT one of them.

Marc

 

[Marc de Vries]

Hi,

I'm trying to decide between these two options, for a server
running Linux (RedHat 9, most likely), which will be used as
a database server, running PostgreSQL (version 7.4, most
likely).

I don't have experience with Linux and PostgreSQL, but I do have some
experience with MS SQL and lots with Exchange which are also databases
and should have similar hardware demands.

We are talking about peak load in the order of 20 or 30 inserts
per second, with clients connecting from three different
places.

The machine is a dual Athlon 2GHz with 1GB of memory.

Now, the big question is: what hard disk configuration should
I choose for this server?

The first question is if the harddiks will be a bottleneck at all. Do
you have experience with other machines running a similar
configuration?

Often a lot of memory will make make load on the harddisk a lot lower.
But this depends lot on the size of the database and the way it is
used. If the database easily fits in memory the harddisk is not used
all that much.

I've been always reluctant to use SCSI; but I keep reading
that for server use, it's almost like it's not even a question,
it must be SCSI, period, by definition.

IDE was not suited for servers in the past. This is the main reason
SCSI is the defacto standard in servers. The server market is very
conservative and people more easily spend the money of the company
then their own money, which is another reason SCSI has stayed the
standard.

Still there are good reasons to choose SCSI is you are willing to pay
premium prices.

- SCSI has much longer cables then IDE. Which can be a pratical issue
in larger servers. Especially when you have 19" racks with external
storage enclosures. (SATA2 will change all that)
- Until recently you only had Raid controllers for SCSI. Which is
considered necessary for servers also. There are good RAID controllers
for IDE for small servers nowadays. In ranges for 4, 8 or even 12
disks. But if you want to have more disks on your array controller you
still need SCSI.

- High end SCSI array controllers (which are VERY expensive) have more
reliability features then IDE controllers. For example external power
supplies in case the mobo fails, and onboard batteries for the ram on
the array controller. All designed so that you can have write back
cache on the controller, and not loose data when power fails in your
server.

- Because SCSI is de defacto standard for servers, manufacturers have
made the more reliable harddisks mainly for SCSI. There is no
technical reason why they couldn't have made IDE harddisks with the
same MTBF, but there simply wasn't a market for it.
This has changed recently with the WD Raptor 10.000 rpm IDE harddisk
and the Maxtor Maxline II 7200 rpm harddisk. The WD Raptor is pretty
expensive though. (but SCSI is still more expensive)
Then again, reliability of harddisk is not all that important anymore
when you use Raid arrays. Even when a IDE disks fails twice as fast,
it is still a lot cheaper.

But I have the impression that these kinds of features of SCSI are not
really what you are interested in.

Still the most important reason to choose SCSI is because of the very
low access times. This again is not caused by the SCSI protocol
itself, but by the high rpm values. A 15000 rpm SCSI has a much better
access time then 10.000 rpm SCSI or 7200 rpm IDE disks.

This access time is important for Random read/write operations.
Which doesn't happen a lot on your desktop, or even on fileservers and
webservers.
SCSI drivers have simple cache management which is optimized for
randrom read/write operations. IDE drivers cache management is
optimized for typical desktop use.
This is why 7200 rpm IDE drives will regularly beat 10.000 rpm SCSI
(and sometimes even 15.000 rpm SCSI) drives in desktop situations.

But a database often has lots of random read/write operations.
This is what makes a database the best case scenario for a SCSI disk.
(I'm talking about comparing single disks here without looking at the
huge price difference)

Considering the option of 3 IDE drives with RAID 5, how do
things compare? 3 IDE's with RAID 5 are a bit more expensive
than a single SCSI (we're talking about renting a dedicated
server, so we're talking monthly fees).

For this kind of use, should I be expecting better performance
from the IDE-based RAID 5 configuration?

It depends.
RAID5 is mainly designed to have affordable redundancy.
It is fast when you read data, but the XOR calculations for RAID5
makes it slow for writing data.
This is a feature of RAID5 itself, and thus applies to both IDE and
SCSI Raid5 controllers.

If you want ultimate performance, and also redundancy then you should
use RAID10. (or RAID0+1)

You would need 4 disks of which two are used for data, instead of 3 of
which two are used with Raid5, but is is a lot faster when writing and
usually also a bit faster when reading. The controller itself can be a
lot cheaper.
4 IDE disks with a Raid10 controller are probably cheaper then 3 IDE
disks with a Raid5 controller.

4 IDE's in Raid10 will be faster than a single SCSI in most situations
and have the added benefit of redundancy. There have been some review
sites that have tested this, but I can't remember them just now.
It has probably been anandtech and/or xbitlabs.

What about two or three SCSI drives without RAID? Will this
be better than the IDE RAID 5 option? (2 SCSI drives of
36G each cost almost the same (a little bit more) than the
three IDE's with RAID5 configuration).

Regardless of SCSI or IDE you should also consider if you want RAID or
want multiple seperate disk volumes.

In lots of databases you have a seperate disk for data and a seperate
disk for logfiles. When a lot of data is written to the logs files, it
gives a huge performance boast to place those logfiles on a seperate
disk, so that the database disk can do other tasks at the same time.

Being able to do that may well be the most important reason to choose
multiple IDE disks over a single SCSI disk.

Of course you might also opt for a single IDE disk for the logfiles
and a IDE RAID0+1 volume for the database files.

For smaller servers there will be lots of situations where you can
configure a server with IDE that will perform just as well as SCSI for
a lower price. Or configure a server that will perform better then
SCSI for the same price.

But when the database gets more demanding there will come a point
where a single SCSI disk, or a few IDE disks in a Raid volume can't
deliver the performance your database wants.
At that time you have to consider buying SCSI raid controllers.

So, as you see, SCSI still has it's place in servers, but it's not
that easy anymore to determine when it is the best solution.

I hope this will give you some more ideas on how to configure your
server.

Also you might want to check some reviews:
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/10k-comparo/index.x?pg=1
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q4/cheetah-15k/index.x?pg=1
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20031114/index.html

And there are lots more that are interesting.

Marc

 

[V@H]

software RAID-5 eats up CPU heaps...

 

[Carlos Moreno]

Woaw!!! Thanks Marc, for a very detailed and very
informative message! Your analysis is extremely useful.

As for whether the harddisks are a bottleneck, that's
sure a big question: I am relatively convinced that
it is not; but one of my colleagues has the opposite
impression, and has been insisting that we should move
to a more performant disks configuration.

What makes it difficult to determine is that under
normal situations, our server works fine even on
peak load ("normal" peaks that occur in "everyday"
situations). But some times, when we have special
events that attract more connections for a short
period of time, then the server has collapsed (in
two occasions the past 4 months). The "post-mortem"
analysis was not trivial, and we are not sure that
we could draw the correct conclusions -- other than
the bottleneck was related to the database.

We are trying to re-architect some details of the
application to promote a better "load balancing",
but at the same time, a hardware boost couldn't
hurt, we think.


Thanks again for your valuable input,

Carlos
--

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hi,

I'm trying to decide between these two options, for a server
running Linux (RedHat 9, most likely), which will be used as a
database server, running PostgreSQL (version 7.4, most likely). [snip]

I've been always reluctant to use SCSI; but I keep reading
that for server use, it's almost like it's not even a question,
it must be SCSI, period, by definition.

IDE was not suited for servers in the past. This is the main reason
SCSI is the defacto standard in servers. The server market is very
conservative and people more easily spend the money of the company
then their own money, which is another reason SCSI has stayed the
standard.

Still there are good reasons to choose SCSI is you are willing to pay
premium prices.

- SCSI has much longer cables then IDE.

Which works for JBOD but not RAID.
SCSI is at it's limit at 4 drives per channel, bandwidth wise.

Which can be a pratical issue in larger servers.

Agreed, but choosing a different case may be wiser.

Especially when you have 19" racks with external
storage enclosures. (SATA2 will change all that)

Why SATA-2 specifically?

- Until recently you only had Raid controllers for SCSI. Which is con-
sidered necessary for servers also. There are good RAID controllers
for IDE for small servers nowadays. In ranges for 4, 8 or even 12
disks. But if you want to have more disks on your array controller you
still need SCSI.

For JBOD.

- High end SCSI array controllers (which are VERY expensive) have more
reliability features than IDE controllers. For example external power
supplies in case the mobo fails, and onboard batteries for the ram on the
array controller. All designed so that you can have write back cache on
the controller, and not loose data when power fails in your server.

- Because SCSI is de defacto standard for servers, manufacturers have
made the more reliable harddisks mainly for SCSI. There is no technical
reason why they couldn't have made IDE harddisks with the same MTBF,
but there simply wasn't a market for it.
This has changed recently with the WD Raptor 10.000 rpm IDE harddisk

and the Maxtor Maxline II 7200 rpm harddisk.

What is so special about the Maxline II?

The WD Raptor is pretty expensive though. (but SCSI is still more expensive)
Then again, reliability of harddisk is not all that important anymore when you
use Raid arrays. Even when a IDE disks fails twice as fast, it is still a lot cheaper.

But I have the impression that these kinds of features of SCSI are not
really what you are interested in.

Still the most important reason to choose SCSI is because of the very
low access times.

And IO/sec.

This again is not caused by the SCSI protocol itself,

but by the high rpm values.

And smaller platters.

A 15000 rpm SCSI has a much better access time then 10.000 rpm SCSI
or 7200 rpm IDE disks.

This access time is important for Random read/write operations.
Which doesn't happen a lot on your desktop,

or even on fileservers and webservers.

Oh? Why not?

SCSI drivers have simple cache management which is optimized for
randrom read/write operations. IDE drivers cache management is
optimized for typical desktop use.
Drivers?

This is why 7200 rpm IDE drives will regularly beat 10.000 rpm SCSI
(and sometimes even 15.000 rpm SCSI) drives in desktop situations.

But a database often has lots of random read/write operations.
This is what makes a database the best case scenario for a SCSI disk.
(I'm talking about comparing single disks here without looking at the
huge price difference)
[snip]

So, as you see, SCSI still has it's place in servers, but it's not
that easy anymore to determine when it is the best solution.

I hope this will give you some more ideas on how to configure your
server.

Also you might want to check some reviews:
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/10k-comparo/index.x?pg=1
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q4/cheetah-15k/index.x?pg=1
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20031114/index.html

And there are lots more that are interesting.

Marc

 

[John Turco]

Woaw!!! Thanks Marc, for a very detailed and very
informative message! Your analysis is extremely useful.

As for whether the harddisks are a bottleneck, that's
sure a big question: I am relatively convinced that
it is not; but one of my colleagues has the opposite
impression, and has been insisting that we should move
to a more performant disks configuration.

Thanks again for your valuable input,

Carlos

Hello, Carlos:

This is the second article, that you'ved used the word, "performant."
What is it, anyway...Spanish? <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Carlos Moreno]

Hello, Carlos:

This is the second article, that you'ved used the word, "performant."
What is it, anyway...Spanish? <g>

How come nobody has ever told me that this word does not
exist in English?! It seemed so obvious to me: from the
verb perform, performant: that has good performance.

I just checked the dictionary, and I only find perform,
performance, and performer... Don't know where the hell
I got that word from... Not from Spanish, I can guarantee
you (there is no word even remotely similar to this one
in Spanish )

Oh well, I'm glad that I learned not only about RAID with
this thread

Thanks!

Carlos
--

 

[Rod Speed]

John Turco wrote:

How come nobody has ever told me that
this word does not exist in English?!

Too polite most likely.

It seemed so obvious to me: from the verb
perform, performant: that has good performance.

English is hardly ever that logical.

I just checked the dictionary, and I only find
perform, performance, and performer...

The usual way to say that in english is 'high performance drive'

Don't know where the hell I got that word from...

It is something that is seen with some verbs, tolerant for example.

Not from Spanish, I can guarantee you (there is no
word even remotely similar to this one in Spanish )

I'd have you publicly whipped if you
hadnt enjoyed that so much the last time.

 

[Carlos Moreno]

Too polite most likely.

Well, polite is in the eye of the beholder... I find that
it was most polite from John to point out my mistake! He
will save me from an embarrasment in a more formal situation,
such as a business meetings, public speaking, etc...

English is hardly ever that logical.

Oh! On the contrary!! Of course, the perception from a
natural English speaker can not be the same as that of a
person that learned English after being an adult, which
was my case.

One of the things I admire the most about English is
precisely how logical and regular it is! The same
rules apply to different situations with far less
exceptions than, say, Spanish or French.

I guess that's the main reason why my brain extrapolated
the word "performant" (tolerant, reluctant, distant,
They're all adjectives that refer to something or
someone that wither executes an action or features a
certain attribute... In fact, distant - distance....
performant - performance... Don't tell me that I'm
the only one seeing the "A is to B as C is to X" in
this situation ).

Well, this is now brutally off-topic, but it was fun
(to me, at least )

The usual way to say that in english is 'high performance drive'

Good! I'll keep this in mind and will try not to make
the same mistake again!

Cheers,

Carlos
--

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Well, polite is in the eye of the beholder...
True.

I find that it was most polite from John to point out my mistake!
Sure.

He will save me from an embarrasment in a more formal
situation, such as a business meetings, public speaking, etc...

Oh! On the contrary!!

Fraid so. There are FAR too many exceptions for it to
be claimed to be particularly logical. Spelling in spades.

Of course, the perception from a natural English speaker
can not be the same as that of a person that learned
English after being an adult, which was my case.

That sort of thing has nothing to do with perceptions,
its either logically structured or it isnt.

One of the things I admire the most about
English is precisely how logical and regular it is!

There are FAR too many exceptions, like the one
being discussed, for that claim to be substantiated.

Thats mostly a result of the wide variety of languages
that particular words have been borrowed from.

English is one hell of a mess in that regard.

The same rules apply to different situations with
far less exceptions than, say, Spanish or French.

There are still FAR too many exceptions, like the one
being discussed, for it to be claimed that english is
particularly logical. More logical than some other
languages, sure, but thats a different matter entirely.

Spelling in spades. Thats a complete and utter abortion.

I guess that's the main reason why my brain extrapolated
the word "performant" (tolerant, reluctant, distant,

Yes, without being aware that english isnt that logical.
The problem is the large number of exceptions, as I said.

They're all adjectives that refer to something or
someone that wither executes an action or features

wither isnt allowed there either.

a certain attribute... In fact, distant - distance....
performant - performance...

And english aint that logical.

Don't tell me that I'm the only one seeing
the "A is to B as C is to X" in this situation ).

What matters is that english aint that logical.

Well, this is now brutally off-topic,

Who cares ?

but it was fun (to me, at least )

Good! I'll keep this in mind and will try
not to make the same mistake again!

You'd better not, or I will have you publicly flogged again |-)

 

[Carlos Moreno]

That sort of thing has nothing to do with perceptions,
its either logically structured or it isnt.

I guess in terms of absolutes, yes, I agree. But the
"perception" plays a role when comparing languages.
Things that you find natural and logical may seem
an abomination to me when learning English, maybe
because that particular detail works very differently
in Spanish.

The converse is also true: you may think that something
is an exception and maybe when seen from a different
perspective (maybe one related to a feature that
exists in Spanish but not in English), it does not
seem so much of an exception... (I can't think of
a concrete example right now, but I do think what
I'm saying makes sense)

There are FAR too many exceptions, like the one
being discussed, for that claim to be substantiated.

Oh boy, you're in for a big surprise and painful ride
if you ever decide to learn Spanish!! And I hear
that German is not particularly kind in that respect

It is true that none of this contradicts your claim;
maybe a compromise between our points of view would be
that there is no spoken language that is logical and
regular, but English is possibly one of the most logically
structured (or one of the least illogically structured,
if you prefer it that way )

Spelling in spades. Thats a complete and utter abortion.

One that is above my abilities to understand English :-(
(well, or puns, or subtleties...)

wither isnt allowed there either.

Oops... Seems that the letters are not logically placed
in keyboards!

Who cares ?

True

You'd better not, or I will have you publicly flogged again |-)

*sigh*... Murphy guarantees that I will most definitely
do it again... Hmmm, what other newsgroups do you often
read, again? ;-) (although I can imagine you searching
periodically through groups.google.com for the keywords
"carlos moreno performant" ... You know, given the
guarantee that Murphy gives us that it *will happen*
again, I guess the effort is well worth the pleasure of
toasting me in public when I do it!! )

Ok, ok... I'll stop now...


Cheers,

Carlos
--

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

I guess in terms of absolutes, yes, I agree. But the
"perception" plays a role when comparing languages.

I never compared anything, I JUST said that english
isnt logically structured and that there are FAR too
many exceptions for that claim to be substantiated.

Things that you find natural and logical

I never said anything about natural. JUST
about whether english is logical enough for
you to be able to do what you did. It isnt.

may seem an abomination to me when learning
English, maybe because that particular detail
works very differently in Spanish.

All completely irrelevant to whether english is logical
enough for you to be able to do what you did. It isnt.

The converse is also true: you may think
that something is an exception and maybe
when seen from a different perspective

Its either an except to the logic or it isnt.

Thats got nothing whatever to do with perception.

(maybe one related to a feature that
exists in Spanish but not in English),

Again, completely irrelevant to whether english is logical
enough for you to be able to do what you did. It isnt.

it does not seem so much of an exception...
(I can't think of a concrete example right now,
but I do think whatI'm saying makes sense)

It doesnt.

Oh boy, you're in for a big surprise and painful
ride if you ever decide to learn Spanish!!

Doesnt have the remotest relevance to whether english is
logical enough for you to be able to do what you did. It isnt.

You're just saying that spanish is even less logical
than english and I didnt even comment on that,
because I know nothing about spanish at all.

And I hear that German is not particularly kind in that respect

Again, doesnt have the remotest relevance to whether english
is logical enough for you to be able to do what you did. It isnt.

It is true that none of this contradicts your claim;

Yep, you're discussing an entirely separate issue,
whether there are languages less logical than english.

I never ever said anything about that.

I clearly JUST said that english isnt logical
enough for you to be able to do what you did.

maybe a compromise between our points of view would be
that there is no spoken language that is logical and regular,

I never said anything about any language except english.

but English is possibly one of the most logically
structured (or one of the least illogically structured,
if you prefer it that way )

But is STILL isnt logical enough to be able
to do what you did. Like I have said all along.

One that is above my abilities to understand English :-(
(well, or puns, or subtleties...)

Its just a colloquial way of saying that english spelling is much
less logical than the particular aspect previously discussed.

Oops... Seems that the letters are
not logically placed in keyboards!

They are actually. The logic is a bit subtle but it was
intended to minimise the risk of jamming in one of the old
style typewriters which had long arms for each character.

*sigh*... Murphy guarantees that I will most definitely do it again...

Oh well, you clearly enjoyed the last public flogging...

Hmmm, what other newsgroups do you often read, again? ;-)

I'll be monitoring all your posts now |-(

(although I can imagine you searching periodically through
groups.google.com for the keywords "carlos moreno performant" ...

Yep, tho I have that completely automated now.

You know, given the guarantee that Murphy gives us
that it *will happen* again, I guess the effort is well worth
the pleasure of toasting me in public when I do it!! )

Ok, ok... I'll stop now...

So you should, and wipe that smirk off
your face too, this is no laughing matter.