Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- From: "Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:43:59 -0600
Nah, I only discount SATA because of their lineage. Whether founded or not,
I perceive SATA as having a higher failure rate than SCSI in a server
application. That comes from the experience of others, a lot of it exposed
in this very newsgroup. At the same time, my experience with SCSI has been
good.
AFAIK, the only reason one would select SATA over SCSI is price. At the time
of purchase, it's fun to see how much you can get for how little, but on the
first failure the savings are all gone, plus some. Just not worth the risk,
IMHO. And as we all know, customers try and save money on initial purchases
only because it's the only thing they know how to do, at that point in time.
Once their SBS is in production and they start to realize the benefits,
investing in technology becomes *so* much easier for them. Suddenly, cost is
not the only thing they know ;-).
I took a chance on the SAS drives, but not without research. I'd have been
quite happy to have used SCSI; that would be my safe choice - but the word
on SAS is that it replaces SCSI. SATA doesn't claim that.
That's the only reason SATA wasn't considered. The disk subsystem is
fundamental to the reliability of the box, and as such it's not the place to
look for cost reductions.
The fact that a drive failed has no significance at this point, other than
I'm on guard. Whenever a drive fails in a new server, one has to consider
the possiblity of a manufacturing batch failure ;-). I'm double on guard
because SAS is fairly new. Fortunately, every array has fault tolerance, and
a global hotspare provides yet another layer. I may not have gone quite that
far with SCSI.
--
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: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
.
- References:
- Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- From: SimonR
- Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- From: Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]
- Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- From: Gregg Hill
- Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- From: Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]
- Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- From: Gregg Hill
- Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- Prev by Date: Windows Firewall Greyed Out
- Next by Date: Re: Wireless network w/ SBS
- Previous by thread: Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- Next by thread: Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
