On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Richard W. Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a client asking if their new computer should have SAS or SATA. Cost > isn't major issue, size is limited to 320G (each, mirrored) for SAS. > > Major issues are reliabliity 3-5 years down the road, and question of > whether or not the potential speed increase is worth it (current system is > pushing 5 years old now, they will NOT use new one that long). > > Any other thoughts on SAS or SATA?
For a server, based on my experience SAS is going to have room for growth. I've used HP Proliant ML370 and DL380 servers. The SAS version comes with 8 bays, You can start with 2-3 and add more later as needed. Actually the 370 is expandable to 16 SAS drives if you want to spend that much. Other then that most servers I have worked with have only had room for 4 SATA drives internally or right in the front (all HP). The HP ML310 is a decent server, supports 4 SATA drives has RAID. you could buy 4x750GB and that might last till its time for a new server again. Those 2U serves that have room for 12 SATA drives in the front are nice. I've seen an Aberdeen, but never really used any. > > Thanks, > > Rich > > > -- > KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list > -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
