Scsi VS Sata for a download server

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

Even the very chassis you recommend has a hotswap SATA version:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/742/SC742T-550.cfm

Yes, it's the best and *ONLY* chassis to use if you *want* to go the SATA
route! It's totally and utterly foolish to use anything else. Just like
its SCSI counterpart, this chassis is well constructed and offers the best
airflow for cooling. The drive temperature *never* exceeds10* ambient.

Reluctantly, we sold and deployed four SATA solutions using this chassis
this year. Two of the systems are percolating along without a hiccup, one
had two drives replaced already, and the forth is eating drives live a Vegas
slot machine eats money. And yes, we thought it was a PSU/regulator problem
and both the PSU and backplane were replaced. One drive died three weeks
after the replacement. I'm at the break-even point with the lost labor
supporting this thing. SCSI drives do take a crap once in a while, but this
has proven to me that I'll put my money on SCSI till all these little quarks
in SATA are "hammered" out.

RAID will take care of the "unreliability" of SATA drives compared to
SCSI, although I`m not convinced SATA drives are any less reliable
than SCSI.

From what I have out in the field, I'm convinced that SATA has a few more
years to go before *I* will recommend it and stake my reputation and life on
it.

Even if they were, you can replace 2-3 SATA drives for the price of
one SCSI. RAID will ensure you have no data loss or downtime
when they fail, which is the whole point surely?

Yep, this is the logic that most substandard companies reccommend to their
customers. They then in the next breath will offer to sell the customer at
a "substantial discount" a 10-pack of SATA drives to keep on hand for
emergencies.

You may have a point with performance, as there are many 10k and
15k rpm SCSI drives available, SATA has just the 10k raptors.

I have found what *most* people want is a happy balance between good
performance and worry free reliability. I tend to avoid customers that want
"high-performance and cheap" solutions.







Rita

 

[dannysdailys]

Rita Ä Berkowitzwrote:

Rita you have hit this nail on the head!

Man, usenet is still one of the most useful resources the internet
provides even after all these years. I haven't contributed in years
but I think I'll start again. Only difference from '93 - a lady
actually had the best advice in a tech issue and it's GREAT to see!!
Now that was difficult in '93.

Long live usenet!

Good luck and have fun! This is a great group to occasionally pick up
some
useful information if you have time to weed out the trolls that spew
misinformation and block out the infighting between them.





Rita[/quote:f4069752a8]

I'm sorry Rita, I don't agree with you. I've put many such SATA
arrays together and have never had hard drive failures. One went due
to overheating and this out of well over 40.

We're not talking about a Internet server. We're talking a 100 node
lan. That's important to consider when spending other peoples
money.

I don't know if you've been following the news, but SATA 2 has SCSI
scared to death. It's performance numbers, in many cases, blows away
a SCSI array. Especially in the exact environment he speaks of. We
won't even mention the cost savings. What is SCSI, twice to three
times the cost?

I don't know what feud you have going on with another poster, but the
place for that isn't here.

 

[dannysdailys]

justatech2004wrote:
Hi,

My company is spending a whole bunch on money on a server just to host
a very important download. It's not a single file. It's several files
where users download whatever part they need using our software client.


We're getting a Dual xeon 2.8 GHZ server with 2 GB ram and I'm not sure
what kinda drives to get. 2x73GB Scsi 10K RPM mirrored has been
recommended by some but they're tougher and much more expensive to get.
We can easily get 10K RPM Sata drives instead.

I hear they actually perform better in many cases. Would this be the
case for a download oriented server like ours?

I want to save the company money but if there is any significant
decrease in performance then I'm definitely obligated to bend over
backwards and go with the scsi.

Any comments/help would be greatly appreciated!

See my post, just above this one:

 

[dannysdailys]

Rita Ä Berkowitzwrote
justatech2004 wrote

Rita you have hit this nail on the head

Man, usenet is still one of the most useful resources the interne
provides even after all these years. I haven't contributed in year
but I think I'll start again. Only difference from '93 - a lad
actually had the best advice in a tech issue and it's GREAT t see!
Now that was difficult in '93

Long live usenet

Good luck and have fun! This is a great group to occasionally pick u
som
useful information if you have time to weed out the trolls that spe
misinformation and block out the infighting between them



Rita[/quote:d44ad85c8e

I'm sorry Rita, I don't agree with you. I've put many such SAT
arrays together and have never had hard drive failures. One went du
to overheating and this out of well over 40

We're not talking about a Internet server. We're talking a 100 nod
lan. That's important to consider when spending other people
money

I don't know if you've been following the news, but SATA has SCS
scared to death. It's performance numbers, in many cases, blows awa
a SCSI array. We won't even mention the cost savings. What is SCSI
twice to three times the cost

I don't know what feud you have going on with another poster, but the
place for that isn't here

 

[chrisv]

You're off to a great start with the dual Xeon.

Stupid, just like all your "advice".

Ignore "Rita" the SCSI troll.

 

[chrisv]

if you have time to weed out the trolls that spew misinformation

Like you, for example.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Rita you have hit this nail on the head!

Man, usenet is still one of the most useful resources the internet
provides even after all these years. I haven't contributed in years but

I think I'll start again.

If you are so naive as you show here, then please don't.

Only difference from '93 - a lady

What lady? Rita is far from a lady.

actually had the best advice in a tech issue and it's GREAT to see!!

Now that was difficult in '93.

Long live usenet!

You sound like a Rita sockpuppet.