Re: SATA drives...

From: Rob Pelletier (rpelletier_at_ody.ca)
Date: 12/11/04 

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:49:20 -0500

Wow - thanks for all the replies. I knew I could count on this group...

I did a little research elsewhere, and most of the information I found came
from someone with a vested interest -- someone with something to sell or
promote. However, reading through the lines, I got the same message out
there that I mostly got here: nothing wrong with it, but not quite there
yet, as a subsitute for SCSI.

Let's face it: for the investment of a new server, OS, backup system, etc.
the difference in the cost to go to SCSI isn't great enough to accept the
relative risk of the lower-cost SATA. I'm not down on SATA - I have SATA in
my workstation, and have had no issues and am happy with the performance.
It just didn't seem like a server solution to me. I asked this forum
because I have expereinced cleints who had had "server" built using a
workstation motherboard and duplexed IDE drives, and what a nightmare that
is! Kind of put me off the whole "ATA in a server" thing.

Entry-level server or not: nobody wants to compromise their data, no matter
how small their network is.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I'll stick with SCSI for now.

Rob P.

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:OGM$EZ93EHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> SCSI drives are designed for servers running 24*7. IDE and most SATA
> drives
> are not.
>
> There are SATA drives which I believe are, basically, SCSI drives with
> SATA
> interfaces. Look for drives with capacities like 36GB and 73GB (rather
> than
> 40 or 80). These drives will also quote MTBF times similar to SCSI, and
> carry similar warranty periods.
>
> "Rob Pelletier" <rpelletier@ody.ca> wrote in message
> news:eJbeir63EHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>I have been reluctant to recommend SATA hard drives for servers, but don't
>>really have a reason for this, other than the fact that it's newer
>>technology and I'm unfamiliar with it. (OK, I"m set in my ways!) I see
>>that the drives are considerably cheaper than SCSI drives of the same
>>capacity, and feel that I either need to stop resisting the way the
>>technology is moving, or at least know the technical reasons why I
>>shouldn't use them.
>>
>> I see, for example, that Dell is offering SATA drives in some of their
>> small business servers, with SBS2003 pre-loaded. HP offers the same.
>>
>> Is SCSI on the way out, or is it reserved now for larger enterprise
>> oprations? Or, is the new ATA technology considered "lightweight"
>> somehow, and is it going to adversely affect the reliablity or longevity
>> of a server?
>>
>> Any opinions out there?
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob Pelletier
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>