SATA v SCSI v SAS drives

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Wallace
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark Wallace

I am building a server for work - it will host terminal servers
propably 30 users.

I therfore need a fast drive.

With th eadvances in the above technology - which should I be using?
 
Mark said:
I am building a server for work - it will host terminal servers
propably 30 users.

I therfore need a fast drive.

With th eadvances in the above technology - which should I be using?
Click to expand...

If you just want to compare drives, http://www.storagereview.com
has a "Performance Database", and you can look at things like
"Average Random Access Time" or "Maximum Transfer Rate - Read"
and the like. There are things you can do, to improve transfer
rate, but the seek time is more expensive to cure. If you had to
have the fastest access time possible, a SSD (solid state disk,
based on RAM) is the fastest solution you could find. You really
need to look at what aspect of the current solution is lacking,
before throwing more money at it.

Paul
 
Mark Wallace said:
I am building a server for work - it will host terminal servers
propably 30 users.

I therfore need a fast drive.

With th eadvances in the above technology - which should I be using?
Click to expand...


You can't answer that question without a budget. SAS is scsi - it is simply
serial scsi instead of parallel scsi - the interface is different but the
basic hardware is the same. ...just like SATA is the same basic hardware
configuration as IDE, just a different interface. My 73 gig sas drives are
about $450 each. My 750 gig Sata drives are about $350 each. ...over 10
times the difference per Gig. Sata will give you pretty much the same
transfer rates as SAS - or at least close to it. The max rpm right now in
sata is 10,000, while SAS/SCSI runs up to 15,000. SAS/SCSI outperforms
primarily in random access times. Sata now comes in service-class models
made to handle the extra vibration and heat in a server. ...check the ES
line in Seagate, I'm sure that other companies have a similar server-class
line. If you want to multiply the hard drive price by about 10x or so, get
SAS for the ultimate in performance. If you can do with slightly less, the
server-class Sata will work fine. Also don't make the mistake that I did by
assuming that since most SAS controllers will run both Sata and sas drives
that the cables are the same - different cables - and those cables can be
expensive. ...but this is not to imply that sata controllers will run sas
(because they won't).

Jeff
 
There are no big difference in performance between all these.
some IDE drives are quicker then identical SATA ones.
Very fast drives won't give you more then 5% boost in overall work.

For server you should look for disks with big cache. this is much more
importent. you should also look for an option to connect the disks in RAID
array to have full time backup.
another importent option is to replace disks on the fly without turning off
the system.

Tal
 
Tal Fuchs said:
There are no big difference in performance between all these.
some IDE drives are quicker then identical SATA ones.
Very fast drives won't give you more then 5% boost in overall work.

For server you should look for disks with big cache. this is much more
importent. you should also look for an option to connect the disks in RAID
array to have full time backup.
another importent option is to replace disks on the fly without turning
off the system.

Tal>
Click to expand...

I'll buy what he said with one exception. Raid is about fault-tolerance not
backup. If a file on the server becomes corrupted for some reason (malicious
program, hardware failure, or otherwise), raid will simply give you two
copies of the corrupt file instead of one. Raid deals only with the hardware
failure of a diskdrive. You still need a backup off of the Raid array.

Jeff
 
Back
Top