> Like I said, I wouldn't want it today for an enterprise class machine (large > centralized enterprise for clarification, where >1000 people concurrently > rely on it for business critical service).
Fair enough... :) -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On 11/8/05, Al Mulnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agreed. That bit of history is exactly what I was thinking as I wrote that. > Those things that today are not enterprise ready, may be tomorrow. Not sure > if the thing has to change or if my perception of the "enterprise" does, but > change is constant ;) > > Like I said, I wouldn't want it today for an enterprise class machine (large > centralized enterprise for clarification, where >1000 people concurrently > rely on it for business critical service). > > -ajm > > > >From: ASB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions > >Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:13:22 -0500 > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >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: [email protected] > > > >To: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]> > > > >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: [email protected] > > > >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: [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. > > > > >> 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/
