RE: SCSI vs. SATA IDE
- From: machunter <machunter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:37:01 -0800
One thing is consistent in all these replies and is in my opinion worth
highlighting:
No one is suggesting using the built in SATA RAID found on many
motherboards. This built in RAID is generally (or always) not true hardware
raid and is likely to cause unacceptable overhead
"RobK" wrote:
> I'm an independant consultant, and like most of you, have no time for junk
> calls to do what should have been done in the first place. That said, heres
> my 2 cents:
>
> I"ve been using the same SATA config in 15-16 servers now for about a year.
> This config supports 10-40 users in various business. All servers have the
> following common drive setup:
>
> 3ware 9500-8 raid controller
> 2- WD740GD 74GB raptors SATA(in raid 1) + 1 hot spare. For OS and logs.
> 3-WD2500SD 250GB Raid Edition SATA (in raid 5) +1 hot spare. For data.
>
> This makes for a total of 7 drives running at a time. The Raid edition
> drives and the raptors are all designed to run full time in server setups. I
> have yet to have one go down and have had minimal issues in support, none for
> hardware. (most all due to customers messing around;)
>
> NOTE: My personal server is setup like this.
>
> I know that scsi is king, but this SATA setup I put together works real well
> and has the stones to push SBS2k3 well. I HAVE found that the MB, processors,
> and memory amount does tend to require a bit of overbuild. This is absolutly
> necessary due to the huge loading that all the stuff SBS2k3 likes to run at
> the same time, on the same box.
>
> If you try to put most of your eggs in one basket, at SBS2k3 does intend,
> then you must be prepared for the performance overbuild required.
>
> Customers wanting cheap can pay for spreading out the resources over
> seperate boxes or they can endure the overbuild costs required when
> consolidating boxes into a SBS2k3 setup. If they can't ubderstand that, then
> as one tech I know said, "perhaps this customer may be more trouble to
> support then its worth".
>
> Sorry about the length.
> RobK
>
>
> "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.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > --
> > Rick Faria - MCSE / A+
> > RDF Technical Services - www.rdfts.com
> > Email: support at rdfts dot com
> >
> >
> >
> >
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Any SBS MVP's in W.Palm Beach area?
- Next by Date: SBS 2003 Licensing Problems
- Previous by thread: Official Windows Server 2003 SP1 on Windows Small Business Server 2003 response
- Next by thread: SBS 2003 Licensing Problems
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
