Add to that - SATA is not for the desktop only. Check out some of the SAN coming out from most vendors, EMC included. Those drives and connections look a lot like SATA to me.
Rick [msft] -- Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or warranties ... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ASB Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:13 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed. It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Depends on the size of the "enterprise" SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure. It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were considered "not designed for the enterprise"... -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a desktop user? The apple desktop? > > I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed. > It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to > server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended > for desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource). > > Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be > cheap and replaceable. > > Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;) > > That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try > not to build too many centrally required applications on that > technology unless I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large > pools that aren't bothered by the loss of several components at a > time.) > > > > > > > > >From: "Rob MOIR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>,<ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org> > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000 > > > >I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in > >a Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still > >just as happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they > >wanted inside the budget we had. > > > >One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to > >use SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to > >it is to replace a drive that you already know has gone bad. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick > >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34 > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > > > ><silly no-hair-color alert> > >SATA == Desktop drives. > > > >They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I > >see them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of > >what I've seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where > >you can absorb the continuous loss of hardware and not impact > >performance and availability. > > Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm > >is called now? ILM? :) > > > >If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is > >not likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit > >longer if the data is important. > > > > > >For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to > >investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support > >agreement, and close access to the highway. > > > >-ajm > > > > > > > > >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > > >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800 > > > > > ><Stupid blonde alert> > > > > > >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but > > >none in the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger > > >in the rack world? > > > > > >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server > > >and desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get > > >knocked off each time I reach into the case. Those cable > > >connections on the back of the SATA drives are a little worrying. > > >I've accidentally bumped the connection off my workstation at home > > >twice while adding the Happauge > >card > > >and what not. > > > > > >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if > > >they > >are > > >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the > > >SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor > > >won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to > > >put that data on that device? > > > > > >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are > > >okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know. > > > > > >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower > > >stuff...lemme just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP. > > > > > > > > > > > >Rob MOIR wrote: > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al > > >>>Mulnick > > >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13 > > >>>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't > > >>>been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with > > >>>1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on those parameters. > > >> > > >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need > > >>to look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer recommends. > > >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort > > >>of > > >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against > > >>them? Who are we to assume we know a product better than the > > >>people who designed and built it? > > >> > > >> > > >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other > > >>>considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course). > > >>> > > >> > > >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my > > >>DCs, even onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just > > >>don't believe in adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental > > >>network services if I can help it. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >-- > > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > > >http://www.threatcode.com > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
