[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SCSI vs SATA research




On Jul 22, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Michael C Garrison wrote:


In the hardware meeting I was asked to gather information on SATA vs SCSI and I wanted to provide what I have found so far. Besides my own benchmarks, which will hopefully be ready for the next hardware meeting, this is the information I have found. I'm sending this to the UMCE list as everyone in the hardware group is on this list, and additionally I think others will find this information usefull.

This is interesting stuff, thanks!


I'd like to narrow the focus of the discussion. I think we've already agreed that when capacity is a concern that moving toward SATA is a win, and that a significant number of future purchases will be SATA-based. I also believe we agreed that we want to have as few *types* of hard drives in production as possible. At this point we have effectively standardized on two different drive models: 400GB 7200 RPM SATA and 36GB 15K RPM SCSI. Therefore, it seems to me the questions we need to address are:

1) What is the real performance difference between the drives upon which we have already standardized when they are deployed on 1U hardware that meets our requirements.

2) If the performance of the 400GB SATA drives in 1U configuration is worse than 36GB SCSI drives in the same configuration, is it acceptable for 1U deployment given the price difference.

3) If the performance of the 400GB SATA drives is not acceptable, are we willing to introduce another hard drive type (Western Digital Raptors) as an alternative to SCSI.

4) If we are considering adding another hard drive type, should we only consider a SATA option? SCSI is moving to a serial architecture as well (SAS), and it shares the same electrical & physical connectors as SATA. This means, theoretically, that we could standardize on two types of drives (one SATA, one SAS) and freely interchange them in servers based on need. Have we even investigated SAS?

Sean