SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?
anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com
Date: 06/21/04
- Next message: YeOldeStonecat: "Best Spam Tool ???"
- Previous message: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: Outlook client problem"
- In reply to: Matt: "SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Reply: root: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:43:14 -0700
For a small network of 10 people, RAID 1 should be fine.
It's a server designed to hold important information...you
should be insisting on some sort of RAID for helping in
the integrity of your data. For common setups, that
leaves you with RAID 1 and RAID 5. RAID 1 is mirroring.
Identicle twins...no performance gain. RAID 5 is striping
with parity, so you get the benefit of integrity, with the
benefit of some performance boost. Minimum of 3x drives
are required. Slightly more price approach...but if you
have some heavy database usage with a lot of concurrent
users...you get some better performance.
Now for drives...my vote would be to remain with SCSI.
Several reasons. I've built MANY servers of each, so I'm
talking from personal experience in this area.
1) SCSI deals a heck of a lot better with "concurrent
hits"...meaning, when several people demand access to
files...dedicated hardware controllers on SCSI drives
simply perform far superior..better performance.
IDE/PATA/SATA cannot compete in this area. Even though
their raw throughput is approaching SCSI performance, they
crumble when you get concurrent demands.
2) SCSI drives (at least the better brands/models) are
built with enterprise in mind. This means the parts they
are built with are designed to last the long haul.
Translation into English...5 year life expectancy of 24/7
operation. IDE/PATA/SATA drives (all except 1 that I know
of)...are "at best"...3 year drives...many of them are
really only 1 year drives. The only SATA drive that I
know of which has "enterprise warranty" behind it....is
Western Digitals Raptor drive. And...BTW, that's really a
SCSI drive redesigned with an SATA interface. It's 10,000
rpm, and runs on SCSI platters with SCSI
components....also obvious by it's capacities..the small
size is 36 gigs, the large model is 74 gigs. Those who
work with server gear should recognize those as SCSI drive
platter sizes. I run one of those drives in my home
gaming machine..boy does it fly! Almost as fast as my
Cheetah SCSI drives.
Anyways...that's my thoughts. It's IMPORTANT data...why
skimp a few bucks on something that isn't as reliable and
doesn't perform as well.
>-----Original Message-----
>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: YeOldeStonecat: "Best Spam Tool ???"
- Previous message: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: Outlook client problem"
- In reply to: Matt: "SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Reply: root: "Re: SATA vs. SCSI, RAID?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
