Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?
From: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP] (gwdibble_at_NOSPAM.frontiernet.net)
Date: 06/21/04
- Next message: Timothy Morris: "VPN or POP/SMTP (was Recipient policies problem)"
- Previous message: Marc: "SQL Enterprise Manager"
- In reply to: Matt: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:16:15 -0400
There's a wealth of RAID information on the Adaptec site. Here's a specific
page comparing SCSI and SATA RAID. I don't have any first-hand experience
with SATA in servers, so I'm not commenting. In general, though, I think
there's a tendency of some posters in the groups, including me, to want the
biggest and best of everything. This is not always warranted by the size of
our offices. (In this spirit, I've managed to avoid buying servers with
redundant RAM). You need to budget and prioritize so that you get a
reliable system that performs adequately for your specific needs.
If you go with SATA and find it's underpowered for your needs, you can
spring for SCSI later. Or, in a couple of years, get a new box for SBS and
make this one your member server for file and print or whatever.
"Matt" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1f14201c457b0$eeae2fb0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> Actually the size of the office does have some thing to
> do with it - the owner of a business with 5000 users is
> probably making a lot more money than a business with 5
> users and is thus willing to spend a lot more to protect
> data. It is not hard to figure out that the most
> expensive hardware is also probably the most reliable.
> However going from SATA drives with software RAID to SCSI
> drives with hardware RAID increases the cost of the
> server by about 30% - and to the SMALL business owner
> that is a big increase for some added security. Are
> there some statistics (relability of SCSI vs SATA) I can
> use to convince the owner that additional money for SCSI
> drives is worth it?
> Thanks again for all the help, Matt
> Susan wrote:
>>The size of the office really has nothing to do with it -
> fault tolerance is
>>still critical, and the data is just as important to 5
> users as to 5000,
>>isn't it?
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>I wouldn't recommend software RAID....this is a very
> important box on your
>>network. Even if you can only do a single RAID5 array
> with multiple
>>partitions, you're better off - if you lose a drive,
> you're still OK. If at
>>all possible make sure you can also specify a drive as a
> hot spare. Don't
>>skimp here.
>>
>>The size of the office really has nothing to do with it -
> fault tolerance is
>>still critical, and the data is just as important to 5
> users as to 5000,
>>isn't it?
>>
>>Matt wrote:
>>> Thanks, just to clarify I do intend to use SBS's
> software
>>> RAID features should I opt not to buy harware RAID. I
>>> guess since they are about the same price the real
>>> question is am I better off with SATA dives and
> hardware
>>> RAID or SCSI drives and Software RAID?
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> you're putting together the primary server and data
> repository for
>>>> your business, the question should not be whether to
> use RAID but
>>>> what level of RAID is desirable.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds to me like RAID1 is sufficient. DON'T even
> think about RAID0
>>>> (which is not redundant in any way).
>>>>
>>>> In order of preference:
>>>> Hardware SCSI RAID.
>>>> Software SCSI RAID.
>>>> I don't believe I've forgotten anything :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Matt" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
>>>> news:1ef4e01c45791$05105f50$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I am buying my first SBS server - it will be used by
> less
>>>>> than ten people mostly to use an access database and
>>>>> companyweb.
>>>>> My question to the list is - How would you spend your
>>>>> small business's money (on hard drives)? While Data
>>>>> protection is important to me saving the company
> money is
>>>>> as well and I am trying to weigh the cost-benefit of
>>>>> spending additional money on SCSI drives or RAID
>>>>> controllers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are my choices.
>>>>> 1) 2 x 80G 7200rpm SATA No RAID
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) 2 x 80G SATA w 6 channel SATA RAID controller (+
> ~$400)
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) 2 x 73G 10000rpm SCSI NO Raid (+ ~$400)
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) 2 x 73G SCSI w single channel RAID Controller,64mb
>>>>> cache, 1 external channel (+ ~$900)
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, If RAID is recommended, RAID 0,1,or5?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for any help,
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>
>>
>>.
>>
- Next message: Timothy Morris: "VPN or POP/SMTP (was Recipient policies problem)"
- Previous message: Marc: "SQL Enterprise Manager"
- In reply to: Matt: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
