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

Re: [K12OSN] SATA vs. SCSI....buying a new server



Hello David,

At this year's North Central Linux Symposium (just had to get that
plug in), Chris Hertel (formerly of the Samba project) discussed
storage.  He has researched more aspects of this issue than I ever
thought possible.  His short answer to your question is that SCSI is
superior in many ways (physical components, firmware).  His
explanation, SCSI is made to run 24/7/365.  SATA was created for the
average home user, and is expected to run on average about 8 hours a
day.  With that said, it also stands to reason that, with the cost
savings and size difference you can get with SATA, that if you decide
to go that route, you do so with redundancy and failure recovery in
mind.

I'm not how much of this was in his presentation.  He was kind enough
to answer all kinds of my storage questions after his presentation.
You can find a copy of it at:
http://www.nclinux.net/cgi-bin/webgenie.cgi?button=97

Hope this helps.

Eric Brown

On 7/13/06, Sudev Barar <sbarar gmail com> wrote:
On 14/07/06, David Trask <dtrask vcsvikings org> wrote:
> dual Xeon 2.8 ghz
> 2 gb RAM
> 2 SCSI 36 gb 15,000 rpm drives
> dual gigabit....etc
>
> The other one is
>
> dual Xeon 2. 8 ghz
> 4 gb RAM
> 2 SATA 120gb 7200 rpm drives
> dual gigabit...etc.
>

Presumptious.... but why not try Dual-AMD64-Dual core? I am impressed
with AMD recent chips and pricing.
--
Regards,
Sudev Barar

_______________________________________________
K12OSN mailing list
K12OSN redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>



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