Re: ????SATA or SCSI????

That's not a fair question ;-). I suppose it could be more statisically
significant (but outside my experience) if only because I think we hear of
more SATA failures than SCSI failures. I haven't yet deployed a server with
SATA drives and I'd rather not take a chance. SAS is new technology, I
haven't heard a lot of complaints about reliability, but then again I have
no idea what percentage of servers are being deployed with SAS either.

Manufacturing defects do tend to show up fairly quickly, sometimes stuff is
even just DOA. I still subscribe to the burn-in theory, and like to run a
new server for a week or so before putting it into production, if possible.

--
Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]
-----------------------------------------------------------
SBS Rocks !
----------------------
"Tell me and I'll forget. Show me and I'll remember. Involve me and I'll
understand." - Confucius


"Gregg Hill" <bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OOgWI7d$GHA.2192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Les,

If the drives had been SATA and one had failed in a week, would you still
be of the opinion that it is not significant?

Gregg Hill



"Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message news:OXncd5d$GHA.4604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I just deployed a server with SAS drives. I'm hoping the technology is
reliable - it's certainly fast :-). The choice was between SCSI or SAS,
SATA wasn't considered. The SAS drives/raid controllers offer a degree of
configuration flexibility not previously available - and as SAS is touted
as the technology that will replace SCIS, the choice was made.

I did have 1 of 8 drives fail within a week, but obviously that can't be
considered significant at this early stage.

--
Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]
-----------------------------------------------------------
SBS Rocks !
----------------------
"Tell me and I'll forget. Show me and I'll remember. Involve me and I'll
understand." - Confucius


"SimonR" <Simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uzT7abd$GHA.5068@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SCSI

IDE/SATA is fine for TOYS!!

The drives are NOT designed for 24/7 x 365 use and they are slow
(7200RPM)

Western Digital produce RAPTOR drives - these are FASTER 10K RPM (speed)
and designed for 24/7 x 365

I always recommend SCSI - having said that my Server uses IDE - but its
a TOY!

If budget is low just use 2 drive in Mirror (RAID-1) setup

and finally - TAPE backup don't use USB HDD
for what they cost I replace tapes every year - the old ones get used
for MONTH END backup

*** You can't have too many backups ***



"Michael Tovey" <michael.spamtovey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:2676FC05-A260-490F-8166-7BEC5833068D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,

I have just had another SATA HDD crash on me in my SBS- 2003 STD server
and
I was wondering!

Have any other people had problems with SATA when used to hold data in
their
SBS server.

I have been told by a furm that we sometime use when I get a bit tight
on
time that SATA is NO good to be used on Data servers and that we NEED
SCSI
Raid 5!

We have about 10GB MAX on the disks and only about 12 people accessing,
and
maybe only 5 at the same time!

What do you all think??????
--
SBS 2003 - Admin
SVR 2003 - Admin
SQL 2005 - Admin









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
    ... it may have been perceived as a major failure if it had been SATA that you ... I haven't yet deployed a server ... Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP] ... If the drives had been SATA and one had failed in a week, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: sata or sas? performance greatly increased with sas?
    ... I've not used the 1680 but Areca's 1261ML (SAS) controller rocks. ... series instead if they plan to only connect SATA disks to them by ... some important areas and server optimized firmware) and a pretty good ...
    (comp.arch.storage)
  • Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
    ... It was thumbs up for SAS. ... Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP] ... They are fast and they are designed for server use. ... SATA wasn't considered. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
    ... I only discount SATA because of their lineage. ... I perceive SATA as having a higher failure rate than SCSI in a server ... Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP] ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Help me configure hardware for new Dell Server
    ... SATA, 15 users and I would have preferred SAS, particularly as I've ... convinced them to virtualise SBS, Virtual Server on Windows 2003 x64). ... I am getting ready to replace my three year old Dell server with a new one ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)