Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:55:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> To: Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Current favorite FC HBA? Message-ID: <20060716205031.K27056@mgmt.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <6BF5AB95-9A4D-4ABD-9717-6623F274CFCD@freebsd.org> References: <813466C3-8E34-4886-9689-044086F4F64C@dragondata.com> <7376DAAA-4C67-495F-A532-5A86C47E8F75@FreeBSD.org> <7579f7fb0607140806q1cf1baf4q24a6f2ec14118a54@mail.gmail.com> <3B9652BC-027D-4FC5-A2E9-3CD7AF12DC4B@freebsd.org> <7579f7fb0607161131h19a995ffjeceda64feb4d7a7a@mail.gmail.com> <6BF5AB95-9A4D-4ABD-9717-6623F274CFCD@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Ade Lovett wrote: ... >> Wait a year. SAS/SATA will blow both away for nearline. > > Maybe, I'm not so sure. Certainly in terms of throughput, SAS/SATA are > relatively close to their SCSI/FCAL counterparts, but I have a number of > systems where the throughput is pretty small, but the IO operations/second > are (very) high. The SATA drives I've tried in that role have failed > miserably compared to their SCSI brethren. SAS then. SAS is basically SCSI anyhow, just a different media type (serial versus parallel U320). I think SAS will replace U320 quite quickly. I noticed that HP is moving many servers to 2.5in SAS drives. I know IBM would like to do the same, but there are supply shortages on 2.5in SAS drives. And there aren't any 15K 2.5in disks yet (that I know of). SAS and 2.5in make a lot of sense for enterprise use. Storage density has increased a lot, so the extra density can be used to put more spindles in less space. Why use a 3.5in 10K 146GB disk, when you can use a 2.5in 10K 146GB disk? Imagine the space savings alone. > -aDe Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060716205031.K27056>