Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
--- Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! I have see benchmarks on the PC-Mag site or maybe it was PC-World that would seem to indicate that all things being equal, SATA would outperform SCSI. I have a few friends using SATA and RAID without any problems. My next server, hopefully by years end, will use that sort of configuration. Sorry, but that is about all I can tell you. -- White Hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
SATA is still quite limited. To go beyond those limits use SAS, but SAS costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology. -Derek At 10:46 AM 9/14/2006, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Derek Ragona wrote: SATA is still quite limited. To go beyond those limits use SAS, but SAS costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology. Get a 12 or 16 or 24 port Areca card and have a few hot spares and you will see SATA fly for less money than SCSI with higher storage and as high or higher reliability (RAID 6 plus hot spares)... I used to be SCSI only but these new cards and drives offer a lot more for the money and you can make up for reliability by sheer mass and raid 6 and hot spares :-) Chad -Derek At 10:46 AM 9/14/2006, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
Bill Moran wrote: Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! I've used 15-drive SATA Promise arrays with some success. They come in both Fibre Channel and SCSI varieties, and are about $10k with 400GB SATA drives. I've run them up to ~170MB/s with RAID-5, which is more than enough for me. You get the best of both the SATA and SCSI/FC worlds. -- -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~skylar/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
