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

[Jim Kronebusch]

> Please weigh in with your opinions on SATA vs.
> SCSI....performance....trade-offs...etc.

I still say for mission critical servers that require high uptime, or machines
that have heavy write usage, go SCSI.  If your budget doesn't permit, or if
uptime and write speeds aren't as important, then use SATA.  I started
switching to SATA for a while on servers, and without actual data, I could
swear the the machines just seemed slower.  I have installed a few servers
such as what you are looking at with the only difference being one budget
allowed for SCSI, the other forced SATA.  Same RAID config, RAM, Procs, etc. 
And the SCSI is hands down faster, how much, I don't have data for.

And as Eric B mentioned, after Chris Hertel's presentation at NCLS, I am more
than ever convinced there are reasons SCSI devices cost so much more.  

My vote is for SCSI.  Easy to add the extra RAM later, but it sucks to scrap a
SATA array and buy a SCSI becuase the server wasn't fast enough.  I just did
that on a server at our school, no fun.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Cotter Technology 
Department, and is believed to be clean.