Re: SCSI or SATA
- From: "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 05:32:56 +1000
me suggesting something "...perform like dogs"? should not be taken as a
positive comment.
basically, I reckon SATA is workstation technology.
"Marek Staniewski" <remove-it.marek.staniewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:%23i1Aqf1xFHA.2652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Can someone tell me what means the expression "...perform like dogs"? Is
> this a positive meaning or negative meaning (see text bellow).
>
> Marek Staniewski
>
>
> U¿ytkownik "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> news:OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between
>> SCSI and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native
>> Command Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface
>> speeds are set.
>>
>> I just checked a local distributor.
>> All available SCSI drives are 10Krpm or better (15K). The Western Digital
>> Raptors are the only SATA drive they stock with a 10K rotational speed.
>>
>> Native Command Queueing on SATA drives is a bit hit and miss (AFAIK,
>> gotta admit to not a lot of experience here). From what I read it will
>> depend on the combination of controller and drive. Of course, SCSI has
>> had this for a long time and it is quite flexible. NCC assists,
>> particularly in busy multitasking systems like SBS, by rearranging the
>> order of reads/writes to the disk, minimising head travel. This not only
>> increases the real world throughput of the drive but reduces head
>> movement and therefore wear and tear on the actuator at least
>> theoretically increasing the life of the drive.
>>
>> Look at the quoted MTBF figures for the drives. The Raptors mentioned
>> above quote very similar MTBF figures to SCSI drives, most other SATA
>> have much lower figures. This is reflected in the warranty offered on the
>> drives, most SATA having 1yr warranty, some having 3yr, few having 5yr.
>> I'm not saying warranty directly corresponds to better drives.
>>
>> I recently inherited support of several SBS systems using SATA drives,
>> most using Intel Dual Xeon mobo's with builtin SII RAID1. They all
>> perform like dogs.
>>
>> "Marek Staniewski" <remove-it.marek.staniewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:u%23LdyPuuFHA.2312@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> We want to make some drastic maintenance at our server system. So far of
>>> course only SCSI drives were recomended.
>>>
>>> I am now not too sure if we shall consider SATA drives. They are much
>>> cheaper and the speed is compareblae to SCSI drives. Is this true and is
>>> really recommended?
>>>
>>> Marek Staniewski
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Suggestions for SBS2000 migration to new hardware
- Next by Date: Re: Changed Primary DNS
- Previous by thread: Re: Suggestions for SBS2000 migration to new hardware
- Next by thread: Re: Changed Primary DNS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
