I've got an emc 150 at work with SATA drives, no issues. I'm also running supermicro chassis's with hotswap sata drives without issue. In fact the recent LJ just build a 16TB server using a 3ware card. Make sure if you go Sata, that you get the RAID/Enterprise drives, not the desktop stuff. 500GB is around 120ish right now per drive vs 90 for non-raid. Unless there was a demand for HIGH disk I/O I lean towards SATA because of the storage size available. It sounds like they're not banging on it hard enough to justify the extra cost of SAS drives.
Mark Chris Louden wrote: > 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
