Re: SATA vs SCSI

In article <dqqiqu$oi0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
rob.nicholson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>
>I know, that old chestnut :-) We're currently running a five year old Dell
>PowerEdge 4400 server with 5 x 70GB Hitachi Ultra 160 SCSI drives in RAID-5
>giving us ~280GB disk space. This server hosts our file share, SQL 7 and
>Exchange 5.5 services.
>
>But the time has come to plan for the future and upgrade where appropriate.
>We're looking at switching to Windows 2003 and buying another server to host
>SQL Server and Exchange. We're at about 40 users at the moment but have
>plans to grow to 100+
>
>Simple question, complex answer I guess: is it still best to stick with SCSI
>or consider SATA? I've read some positive reviews of the SATA Raptor versus
>SCSI systems. Cost isn't really the biggest issue - mainly want the best
>technology for the next five years. Yeah, I know - impossible task :-)
>


seems like SCSI will be best for your requirement because
it's a lot more reliable & higher performing that SATA, especially
in IOP (database, OLTP, etc. applications while SATA is a great
way to save $$ if your requirement is either a streaming one
(digital video editing, tape backup emulation, etc.)

& don't forget, SCSI is turning to SAS (serial attached scsi)
right now and that means that you can buy storage subsystems
that have drive slots that take a mix of SATA & NSAS drives
(think of a RAID with 5 SATA drives in one array for your DVE
application & 10 SAS drives for your OLTP & database requirements

_____ . .
' \\ . . |>>
O// . . |
\_\ . . |
| | . . . |
/ | . www.EvenEnterprises.com . . . |
/ .| info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx . . . |
/ . | 310-544-9439 / 310-544-9309 fax . . . o
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new mid-high end storage
iSCSI/NAS/SAN/RAID from EMC, HP, Equallogic, Quantum, OverLand Storage

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ????SATA or SCSI????
    ... I only discount SATA because of their lineage. ... I perceive SATA as having a higher failure rate than SCSI in a server ... Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP] ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SCSI or SATA
    ... I concurr with John... ... I know that SATA are supposed to be slower than SCSI, ... >>> existing Server has SCSI drives and need your advise on the new server. ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
  • Re: SATA drives...
    ... as a subsitute for SCSI. ... for the investment of a new server, OS, backup system, etc. ... relative risk of the lower-cost SATA. ... > SCSI drives are designed for servers running 24*7. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: need suggestions on Hardware
    ... I've heard that SCSI is on the way out, and quite frankly I don't really ... I would like to find out what is the best server and disk system ... Now, SATA drives certainly will be cheaper, but that's ... > etc. so it is impossible to give any guidelines as to server solutions. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: insert while loop performance degrade on Win2k3 cluster
    ... > In general, the servers are the same, except the new server has slightly ... The new server also has fibre-channel drives vs. SCSI drives. ... >measure SQL Transactions/sec on each server, the new server runs at 165 SQL ... Each of your log flush is a small IO ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)