SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
White Hat
pigskin_referee at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 14 09:18:38 PDT 2006
--- Bill Moran <wmoran at collaborativefusion.com> wrote:
> In response to Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet at esiee.fr>:
>
> > Gerard Seibert wrote:
> > > Frank Bonnet wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >> I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around
> 10K$
> > >
> > > Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason
> that SATA or RAID with
> > > SATA is not acceptable? Just curious.
> >
> > Because I want it
>
> Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has
> the problems that plagued
> ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches?
>
> Personally, I still demand SCSI on production
> servers because it still
> seems as if:
> a) The performance is still better
> b) The reliability is still better
>
> But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA
> offerings. It also
> seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards
> can support 16
> devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know
> it's not common, but
> if you need that many spindles, you need them!
I have see benchmarks on the PC-Mag site or maybe it
was PC-World that would seem to indicate that all
things being equal, SATA would outperform SCSI. I have
a few friends using SATA and RAID without any
problems. My next server, hopefully by years end,
will use that sort of configuration. Sorry, but that
is about all I can tell you.
--
White Hat
pigskin_referee at yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list