[TriLUG] SCSI vs. SATA in theory

[Greg Brown]

Excellent.  So my primary drive will be SCSI, at least 36 gig, and 
/backup will be a 200+ gig SATA whopper.

Thanks again, all!

Greg

On Feb 10, 2005, at 3:00 PM, Kevin Flanagan wrote:

> We had HP server engineering staff in here a little while back.  They 
> are
> making most of the Proliant line, the 300 series at least, available as
> SATA or Parallel SCSI now, and moving in the direction of Serial SCSI 
> over
> the long term.
>
>
> We asked the engineering team about SATA vs SCSI and the MTBF etc, they
> said that their testing shows about 1/2 of the MTBF for ATA/SATA.   
> That's
> not so good, we have a load of Proliant DL360's going out, about 1200 
> of
> them over the next year.  We also learned that the Warranty of the SATA
> disks is only 1 year, where the Warranty on the SCSI disks are 3 
> years, if
> you expect to keep these things up for years, you really should just go
> with the SCSI disks.
>
>
> The performance of SCSI is still generally faster, SATA makes headway, 
> but
> now there's Serial SCSI on the horizon, SCSI should widen the 
> performance
> gap once again.
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>> sata drives are not substantially different from traditional ide 
>> drives,
>>  they just have a different controller and interface.  the only
>> exception that i know of are the wd raptors which are aimed at the
>> enterprise market and cost about the same as scsi.
>>
>> therefore, if reliability is truly a concern and you want to do the 
>> job
>> right, then you really only have one option - scsi.  and since that
>> isn't 100% foolproof, you still need backup of some sort.  use 
>> sata/ide
>> for that purpose - dense, cheap, and if it fails you haven't lost
>> anything.  but if reliability is the goal, stick with scsi.
>>
>> jason
>>
>> On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:32, Greg Brown wrote:
>>> Do mean time between failure rates between SCSI and SATA differ
>>> greatly in the field?  Most IDE drives seem to live 3-5 years under
>>> moderate use and I'm fairly certain that SCSI can go much further 
>>> then
>>> that, but what about SATA?  I have to spec out my home server that I
>>> want to build once the wife's bonus arrives and I'm thinking about
>>> drives.  I have lots of OLD data that I could probably part with (old
>>> laptop files from companies I no longer work for, etc) but I don't
>>> want to - you never know when those five year old Lucent files might
>>> come in handy!
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> I've been looking towards SATA for the large-volume storage and
>>> thinking about SCSI for my heavily used partitions (web, database,
>>> tmp).
>>>
>>> Does adding a SCSI drive just for high duty-cycle partitions rally
>>> matter?  Can I get away with just having everything on one, big SATA
>>> drive?  I normally only get  one chance over five years to build a
>>> really nice server, so I want to get this right.
>>>
>>> Greg
>> --
>> TriLUG mailing list        :
>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational 
>> FAQ
>> : http://trilug.org/faq/
>> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>> TriLUG PGP Keyring         : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
>
>
>
> +------------------------------------------------+
> Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
>
> Groucho Marx
>
>
> -- 
> TriLUG mailing list        : 
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> TriLUG PGP Keyring         : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
>