On 06/11/2017 10:09, Zane C. B-H. wrote:
In my years of doing decade plus of DC work, I've seen both SAS and SATA
drives flake and render systems in operable till the offending drive is
removed.
My experience too.
For Supermicro it will vary between backplanes.
Very true indeed. If they go on or off from time to time, that's good
enough.
I'm guessing that you don't have an expander (since you only have 8
slots), so item 1 doesn't matter to you. I'll guess that item 3
doesn't matter either, or you wouldn't have asked this question. Item
5 can be dealt with simply by buying the higher end SATA drives. So
item 6 is really the most important. If this system needs to have
very high uptime and consistent bandwidth, or if it will be difficult
to access for maintenance, then you probably want to use SAS drives.
If not, then you can save some money by using SATA. Hope that helps.
Actually most boxes with more than 4 slots tend to be use multipliers.
I'm more mixed on that. There are quite a few Dells with eight or
twelve-slot backplanes, even if it means two HBAs. Apart from better
performance, the cost of 2xHBA+backplane is bizarrely less than
1xHBA+Expander. All the Supermicros I've seen have had expanders though.
As to uptime, that is trivial to achieve with both.
With both it is of importance of drive monitoring and regular self tests.
WHS! Biggest cause of problems is discovering a flaky drive or two AFTER
the redundant one has failed. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but
I'm inclined to do a straightforward read of a block device rather than
a ZFS scrub because (a) I think it's quicker, especially when there's
not much workload; and (b) it also reads unused blocks, which are
probably the majority. "Best Practice" says you should do a scrub every
three months - seems way to long a gap for my liking.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
