Preach It Guys! I have some customers with good SATA disk implementations that are very happy.
I have some customers with some bad SATA disk implementations that are in a very unhappy place. It's all about understanding the performance characteristics of what you buy, and matching it to your performance requirements. Don't expect to haul a ton of concrete with a SmartCar. And if it seems too cheap to be true.... there's probably a reason. Wanda > Allen is correct: lots of write back cache and you are good to go. > > The better solution IMHO is to use some fast SAS or FC disk as > traditional disk device class pool fronting a bunch of SATA file device > class. You can then control the number of streams writing to the SATA > disks and keep them in their happy place: serial I/O. > > We have probably 30 customers or so that are using various amounts (up > to 200TB) of SATA disks in their STORServer/TSM environments. Most, if > not all, are very happy with their backup and restore performance. For > the larger sites, we're implementing some fast SAS or FC disk in front > of SATA and improving performance by a bunch. > > My opinion: go forth and SATA baby! > > > Kelly J. Lipp > VP Manufacturing & CTO > STORServer, Inc. > 485-B Elkton Drive > Colorado Springs, CO 80907 > 719-266-8777 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Allen S. Rout > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] SATA disk? > >>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:09:31 -0500, Johnny Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > >> I thinking the speed (7200 RPM) may be a problem. > > > Good cache obviates that. SATA is good for serial workloads, so if > you're sending few (maybe <10) streams to it simultaneously, you should > be good. > > It'll suffer faster under heavy random access contention than will e.g. > FC disk. > > > - Allen S. Rout >
