| Author |
Message |
Marek Staniewski
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:52 pm Post subject:
SCSI or SATA |
|
|
We want to make some drastic maintenance at our server system. So far of
course only SCSI drives were recomended.
I am now not too sure if we shall consider SATA drives. They are much
cheaper and the speed is compareblae to SCSI drives. Is this true and is
really recommended?
Marek Staniewski |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Duncan McC
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:51 am Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
In article <OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, not@your.nellie
says...
| Quote: | there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
|
About SATA, do they support hot swapping?
--
Duncan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:51 am Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
I just checked a local distributor.
All available SCSI drives are 10Krpm or better (15K). The Western Digital
Raptors are the only SATA drive they stock with a 10K rotational speed.
Native Command Queueing on SATA drives is a bit hit and miss (AFAIK, gotta
admit to not a lot of experience here). From what I read it will depend on
the combination of controller and drive. Of course, SCSI has had this for a
long time and it is quite flexible. NCC assists, particularly in busy
multitasking systems like SBS, by rearranging the order of reads/writes to
the disk, minimising head travel. This not only increases the real world
throughput of the drive but reduces head movement and therefore wear and
tear on the actuator at least theoretically increasing the life of the
drive.
Look at the quoted MTBF figures for the drives. The Raptors mentioned above
quote very similar MTBF figures to SCSI drives, most other SATA have much
lower figures. This is reflected in the warranty offered on the drives, most
SATA having 1yr warranty, some having 3yr, few having 5yr. I'm not saying
warranty directly corresponds to better drives.
I recently inherited support of several SBS systems using SATA drives, most
using Intel Dual Xeon mobo's with builtin SII RAID1. They all perform like
dogs.
"Marek Staniewski" <remove-it.marek.staniewski@derco.com.pl> wrote in
message news:u%23LdyPuuFHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | We want to make some drastic maintenance at our server system. So far of
course only SCSI drives were recomended.
I am now not too sure if we shall consider SATA drives. They are much
cheaper and the speed is compareblae to SCSI drives. Is this true and is
really recommended?
Marek Staniewski
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Jenkin [SBS-MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:35 am Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
Other item to consider is the Mean time before failure. Allot of SATA
resellers are selling workstation drives that appear highspeed but not
designed to run 24x7. Serial attached SCSI is now out so new
technologies are just appearing that might be more appropriate.
Duncan McC wrote:
| Quote: | In article <OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, not@your.nellie
says...
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
About SATA, do they support hot swapping?
|
--
Michael J. Jenkin MVP - SBS, Senior Systems Engineer
Visit http://www.mickyj.com
Microsoft Most Valued Professional, Microsoft's Windows Server Systems -
Small Business Server
MVP's do not work for Microsoft. If this email was generated in a
newsgroup, please reply only to the newsgroup.
Note: The contents of my postings and responses here represent my
personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views, thoughts or
feelings of Microsoft or any of its employees.
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Jenkin [SBS-MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:38 am Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
If you have the money, you can buy the hotswap drive bays. You might
also need to look into a special Sata controller.
Take a look at a few
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=hot+swap+sata+drives&meta=
Duncan McC wrote:
| Quote: | In article <OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, not@your.nellie
says...
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
About SATA, do they support hot swapping?
|
--
Michael J. Jenkin MVP - SBS, Senior Systems Engineer
Visit http://www.mickyj.com
Microsoft Most Valued Professional, Microsoft's Windows Server Systems -
Small Business Server
MVP's do not work for Microsoft. If this email was generated in a
newsgroup, please reply only to the newsgroup.
Note: The contents of my postings and responses here represent my
personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views, thoughts or
feelings of Microsoft or any of its employees.
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Horridge
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:51 pm Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
"Duncan McC" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d962955faad9cb39897d7@news.microsoft.com...
| Quote: | In article <OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, not@your.nellie
says...
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between
SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native
Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
About SATA, do they support hot swapping?
--
Duncan
|
I believe they can it depends upon the bay they are installed in and the
controller connected to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Duncan McC
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:50 am Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
In article <dgot6q$cf5$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, pat@remove-
spam.vet.co.uk says...
| Quote: |
"Duncan McC" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d962955faad9cb39897d7@news.microsoft.com...
In article <OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, not@your.nellie
says...
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between
SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native
Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
About SATA, do they support hot swapping?
--
Duncan
I believe they can it depends upon the bay they are installed in and the
controller connected to them.
|
Thanks, I thought that might be the case - so pretty much the same as
SCSI ('cept there may not be that many hot-swappable controllers for
SATA drives out there - yet.)
--
Duncan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wendel Hamilton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
Seagate offer SATA drives with 5 years warranty.
Adaptec have SATA raid controllers so do Intel and others.
Enlight have SATA hot swap bays.
I have a mixture of customers using SATA RAID and SCSI RAID and in terms of
drive failures I've replaced dozens of SCSI drives but only 1 SATA this if
probably because of the high power requirements of SCSI drives.
While drive rotation latency can be an issue with SATA it’s mostly over come
with large read cache in the drive and controllers. If you need that extra
10-20% performance then SCSI is the way to go but honestly unless you are
serving huge databases or hosting 1000s of exchange mailboxes SATA is worth a
go.
"Duncan McC" wrote:
| Quote: | In article <dgot6q$cf5$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, pat@remove-
spam.vet.co.uk says...
"Duncan McC" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d962955faad9cb39897d7@news.microsoft.com...
In article <OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, not@your.nellie
says...
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between
SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native
Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
About SATA, do they support hot swapping?
--
Duncan
I believe they can it depends upon the bay they are installed in and the
controller connected to them.
Thanks, I thought that might be the case - so pretty much the same as
SCSI ('cept there may not be that many hot-swappable controllers for
SATA drives out there - yet.)
--
Duncan
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wendel Hamilton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
Oh I should have mentioned that if you are going to use SATA only use RAID 5
configuration as Raid 0,1 really do cripple their performance.
"Duncan McC" wrote:
| Quote: | In article <dgot6q$cf5$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, pat@remove-
spam.vet.co.uk says...
"Duncan McC" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d962955faad9cb39897d7@news.microsoft.com...
In article <OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, not@your.nellie
says...
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between
SCSI
and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native
Command
Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface speeds are
set.
About SATA, do they support hot swapping?
--
Duncan
I believe they can it depends upon the bay they are installed in and the
controller connected to them.
Thanks, I thought that might be the case - so pretty much the same as
SCSI ('cept there may not be that many hot-swappable controllers for
SATA drives out there - yet.)
--
Duncan
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Duncan McC
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
In article <E27FC5A6-1836-484A-B235-207884C9A52E@microsoft.com>,
WendelHamilton@discussions.microsoft.com says...
| Quote: | Oh I should have mentioned that if you are going to use SATA only use RAID 5
configuration as Raid 0,1 really do cripple their performance.
|
How do you work that out?
--
Duncan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject:
Re: SCSI or SATA |
|
|
me suggesting something "...perform like dogs"? should not be taken as a
positive comment.
basically, I reckon SATA is workstation technology.
"Marek Staniewski" <remove-it.marek.staniewski@derco.com.pl> wrote in
message news:%23i1Aqf1xFHA.2652@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Can someone tell me what means the expression "...perform like dogs"? Is
this a positive meaning or negative meaning (see text bellow).
Marek Staniewski
Użytkownik "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> napisał w wiadomo¶ci
news:OhpMhiwuFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
there are two (or more) significant performance differentiators between
SCSI and SATA, the rotational speed of the drives and support of Native
Command Queueing. I'm leaving the interface rate out of it, interface
speeds are set.
I just checked a local distributor.
All available SCSI drives are 10Krpm or better (15K). The Western Digital
Raptors are the only SATA drive they stock with a 10K rotational speed.
Native Command Queueing on SATA drives is a bit hit and miss (AFAIK,
gotta admit to not a lot of experience here). From what I read it will
depend on the combination of controller and drive. Of course, SCSI has
had this for a long time and it is quite flexible. NCC assists,
particularly in busy multitasking systems like SBS, by rearranging the
order of reads/writes to the disk, minimising head travel. This not only
increases the real world throughput of the drive but reduces head
movement and therefore wear and tear on the actuator at least
theoretically increasing the life of the drive.
Look at the quoted MTBF figures for the drives. The Raptors mentioned
above quote very similar MTBF figures to SCSI drives, most other SATA
have much lower figures. This is reflected in the warranty offered on the
drives, most SATA having 1yr warranty, some having 3yr, few having 5yr.
I'm not saying warranty directly corresponds to better drives.
I recently inherited support of several SBS systems using SATA drives,
most using Intel Dual Xeon mobo's with builtin SII RAID1. They all
perform like dogs.
"Marek Staniewski" <remove-it.marek.staniewski@derco.com.pl> wrote in
message news:u%23LdyPuuFHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
We want to make some drastic maintenance at our server system. So far of
course only SCSI drives were recomended.
I am now not too sure if we shall consider SATA drives. They are much
cheaper and the speed is compareblae to SCSI drives. Is this true and is
really recommended?
Marek Staniewski
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in