<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: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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/
