> To clarify, I meant that given X vs. Y, the cost benefits of X > eventually overwhelm the initial technical benefits of Y. > > With SATA vs. SCSI in particular, I wasn't so much thinking of command > sets or physical connections but of providing cluster scale storage > (i.e., 10's or 100's of TB) where it's fast enough and reliable enough > but much cheaper to use commodity 7200 rpm SATA drives in RAID 5 than > "server grade" 10k or 15k rpm SCSI or SAS drives.
this dated prejudice that scsi is for servers and ata is for your dad's computer has just got to die. could you explain how raid 5 relates to sata vs sas? i can't see now it's anything but a non-sequitor. you do realize that enterprise sata drives are available? you do realize that many of said drives are built with the same drive mechanism as sata hard drives? as an example, the seagate es.2 drives are available with a sas interface or a sata interface. (by the way, enterprise drives are well worth it, as i discovered on monday. :-(.) while it's true there aren't any 15k sata drives currently on the market, on the other hand if you want real performance, you can beat sas by getting an intel ssd drive. these are not currently available in a sas. - erik
