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

Actually, drive failure in the first week is not surprising, whether SATA, SAS, SCSI or IDE. Look at the curve for failure on HDs, and you'll see it's really high initially and really high towards the EOL, and very low in the middle. Guess what - the mfgs don't count either end of the curve towards their MTBF numbers.

SAS drives are designed for server use. They're FAST. They're easy to configure. And they're where I'm going in the future. But they're still pretty pricy.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"Gregg Hill" <bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:O8x8zfe$GHA.3380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Les,

The reason I asked it that way is that people tend to discount errors in a product or technology that they like, and they tend to focus on the errors in a product that they do not like, or with which they are unfamiliar.

A classic example is Japanese vs. domestic cars. I had friends with Fords and friends with Hondas who had problems with their radiators. Specifically, after 110,000 miles, the radiator on my Ford Bronco II started to leak. My wife's friend had a Honda Civic with 45,000 miles with the same problem. Her friend said my Ford was a piece of junk because of the leak, but when her Honda started leaking a week after my truck did, she said it "was just a fluke."

Ford even did testing with Japanese car owners, and they said they had no problems with their cars. Then Ford asked specific questions, such as questions targeted at brakes, A/C, and electrical, and they found that the people had the same problems as Ford and other domestic makes, but their **perception** was that is was no big deal.

Equal problems, but since they **perceived** their Japanese cars with favor, they felt the problems were minor, when in fact they were the same as domestic makers' cars.

So, the question was absolutely fair. You never considered SATA, which indicated you do not like it (yet?), and that **could** bias your opinion of the drive failure as being insignificant in a technology that you like, but it may have been perceived as a major failure if it had been SATA that you do not like. That was the point of the question.

Gregg Hill




"Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:u$4n1Ke$GHA.4592@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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