Hi deadhead, on Friday, 2006-08-04 at 10:53:21, you wrote: > > For most uses el cheapo SATA will be better (but SCSI / SAS / > > FibreChannel has its place) > > > Don't agree. RAID Linux could be a valid solution, is flexible , but > it's not invisible, not OS indipendent and stress the CPU.
Depends. For RAID0/1, the CPU load is negligible, RAID5/6 is another
story and *might* justify a hardware RAID controller. Myself I'm an
old-time SCSI user, since my Amiga times when SCSI was the only decent
choice anyway. Our server has a SmartArray 642 with battery-backed
cache, 10krpm U320 drives, a RAID5 for data and a RAID1 for
system---just great (if you configure it correctly...I moaned about that
when migrating to Gentoo a while ago here). BUT I wouln't build such a
system myself. The disk subsystem costs more than I'd spend for a
server. Sure, it's super reliable and all, but if I can get the same
capacity in SATA for a quarter of the price, let the drives have a third
the MTBF and I still gained something if I make it a RAID6 instead of
RAID5.
> The reason why I choose scsi is AFFIDABILITY. sata is pretty new ,
> scsi is around since ages, it's bullet proof and outclass in
> performances a sata disk.
I think SATA hardware isn't that different at all any more, especially
as the command sets are virtually the same now. It's just cheaper,
MTBF-wise, and they usually don't make the super-speedy models in SATA.
cheers!
Matthias
--
I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665
Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0 8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665
pgpTHBp23TtTV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
