[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
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