Hi,
in the next days I want to install a Linux server.
This server should run 24/7. One question about
harddisks:
Somebody told me that S-ATA HD are not suitable
for a server because they are not supposed to
be run 24h every day. Instead this person
recommended me to use SCSI HDs which are more
reliable in this case. Is this true?
Or shouldn't I worry about using S-ATA harddisks
for my server?
Thank you for your answer.
Chris
It would be nice to assume that the great increase in price of SCSI drives
corresponds to a longer life or duty cycle but so far I've seen no
exidence that even the bearings in SCSI drives are any different to the
extent that they would hold up better. There's been unfounded speculation
but never any evidence of it... if someone has real evidence of mechanical
differences that would yield a longer lifespan I encourage them to produce
these details. Otherwise we have to also consider that manufacturers may
be making assumptions about different usage patterns, such as the tendency
of server drives to stay spinning, not be set to spin-down at short
intervals as a "PC's" drives potentially are. The most notable example of
a drive spec'd to only run for 8 hrs/day is that of an IBM Deskstar that
had an excessively high failure rate to begin with... would seem to be
IBM's damage control PR rather than a spec that applies to _all_ PATA or
SATA drives.
Without any evidence that SCSI drives will last longer, we can only focus
on the typical issues, having ample clean power and cooling of the drives.
Further if the drives hold valuable data, you should consider a regular
replacement interval such that when replaced, they still work, else
running in a RAID 1 or other fault-tolerant array... this is assuming you
need continual uptime, that there is significant loss to having system
down for upwards of an hour or longer till a backup is restored to a new
drive.