Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE
From: Matt Gibson (mattg_at_blueedgetech.ca)
Date: 03/16/05
- Next message: Jim Behning SBS MVP: "Re: VPN Mystery !"
- Previous message: Jim Behning SBS MVP: "Re: 2k3 sbs active directory stoped working"
- In reply to: Rick F: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Next in thread: wedor: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Reply: wedor: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:55:25 -0800
*Grin* I totally agree.
All our servers that will have 15-20+ users, get SCSI, there's just no other
option.
And here's where I start to agree with Supergumby. If they point to $499
dell servers (which Dell themselves don't even like), and after you've
explained the problem, they still insist, then walk.
They'll be more trouble than they're worth.
Matt Gibson - GSEC
"Rick F" <rick.REMOVE@rdfts.REMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:elyOzrdKFHA.2716@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>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: Jim Behning SBS MVP: "Re: VPN Mystery !"
- Previous message: Jim Behning SBS MVP: "Re: 2k3 sbs active directory stoped working"
- In reply to: Rick F: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Next in thread: wedor: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Reply: wedor: "Re: SCSI vs. SATA IDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
