Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE
From: Rick F (rick.REMOVE_at_rdfts.REMOVE.com)
Date: 03/16/05
- Next message: gb1: "icw errors in log no owa access"
- Previous message: Matt Gibson: "Re: NEw Server Back up Options"
- In reply to: Chad A. Gross [SBS MVP]: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Next in thread: Matt Gibson: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Reply: Matt Gibson: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:47:58 -0600
I definitely see your point and I agree for a small company with 10 users
and not too much demand, I can see where IDE can fill that niche. I do have
a few clients that has 5-8 users that I can see this applied.
The reason I brought this discussion up was because I have a client that
wants Exchange for 40+ users and an accounting package that runs on SQL, so
I recommend SBS standard. I spec out a Dell server with SCSI and the price
is over $5K, this includes of course, the tape drive and tapes, UPS, etc,
etc.
They complain to me and tell me they see Dell servers for $499 and they want
that. I tried to comprise and got it down to the $2-3k figure and they come
back with that is still too much....
I have another client with 25 users that currently has one W2K Server that
is really aging. They use POP3 mail from all different ISP's and the server
configuration is a real mess ( I took it over) plus they have their
accounting package that is currently running on MSDE and really bogging down
but will support a migration to SQL . Again, I spec out a SCSI server and it
is too much.....
I think I am failing back to the "put it in writing" and move forward. At
least there is money in return visits because they aren't happy with
performance. :-)
-- Rick Faria - MCSE / A+ RDF Technical Services - www.rdfts.com Email: support at rdfts dot com "Chad A. Gross [SBS MVP]" <chad.gross@laytonflower.nospam.com> wrote in message news:%231H6CoaKFHA.2800@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >I was in that camp for a long time - and then I realized something: > > There were potential clients who would be great clients - but just > couldn't afford one of our recommended spec'd boxes (including hardware > SCSI RAID 5 w/ hotspare). These clients were often in the 3 - 8 user > range and had minimal computing needs. A lot of office apps, email and > one user running QuickBooks or Peachtree. These same potential clients > have everything sitting on a peer server that is usually about 3 years old > with a single IDE drive - and while they don't like the idea of downtime, > their business could survive a day or two of downtime if they absolutely > had to deal with it. That is when we started selling servers with SATA > RAID solutions. The performance is everything they need and more, the > hardware RAID (w/ hotspare) gives them redundancy - and we're able to get > SBS into a small business that can truly benefit from the product - who > would not have been able to if we had stuck to our 'SCSI only' mantra . . > . > > Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of SCSI technology, and once we're > hitting 10-15+ users or any sort of LOB app that is going to require a > decent amount of resources (SQL based, living on the SBS, etc.) - then we > always spec SCSI. But there is a good section of potential clients that > are not being properly served by insisting on SCSI. SATA fills a niche . > . . > > -- > > Chad A. Gross - SBS MVP > SBS ROCKS! > > www.msmvps.com/cgross > www.gosbs.org > > > Rick Faria wrote: >> I have to somewhat agree with you. My thought is to turn away the >> business. My other thought is to tell the client how strongly I >> disagree with the cheaper solution, put it in writing that I told you >> so type of thing and move on and get what they want.... >> >> Rick >> >> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" >> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in >> message news:%23u8lW5WKFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >>> Rick F wrote: >>>> I am a firm believer in SCSI hard drives with hardware RAID for a >>>> SBS server. I usually like to split the backplane using 5 or 6 hard >>>> drives. Two hard drives with RAID1 for the OS and Exchange log files >>>> on one channel and the other 3 for RAID5 on another channel to store >>>> data. The 6th drive is for an online spare. >>>> Of course this configuration does add to the cost of the server. >>>> Now I am seeing SATA hard drives that seem a somewhat common >>>> configuration in new Dell servers. I do not believe in IDE drives >>>> even in a RAID configuration when it comes to servers but some of my >>>> "cheaper" clients don't want to pay for performance and reliability >>>> that I recommend. >>> >>> My two cents - although I've heard many people say they're quite >>> happy with >>> SATA/IDE RAID, I won't do it myself - not yet. I only use SCSI RAID >>> - have turned down work when clients don't want to pay for the >>> minimum kit I recommend. It also indicates to me that they may >>> nickel&dime me over my bills, and trust me, although I do >>> overengineer small business networks to a >>> degree, that has never failed me. >>> >>>> >>>> Isn't there a performance loss when using SATA drives on something >>>> like SBS that is very demanding? >>>> I can see going cheap on a server that only has 5 users but do >>>> others go SATA for a server that has 40 users? > >
- Next message: gb1: "icw errors in log no owa access"
- Previous message: Matt Gibson: "Re: NEw Server Back up Options"
- In reply to: Chad A. Gross [SBS MVP]: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Next in thread: Matt Gibson: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Reply: Matt Gibson: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
