From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 17 03:55:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D34E16A4DF; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:55:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from mx5.uniserve.ca (mx5.uniserve.ca [216.113.192.94]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E53543D55; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:55:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from mgmt.uniserve.ca ([216.113.192.30]) by mx5.uniserve.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G2KCq-000CJH-Kz; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:55:40 -0700 Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:55:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius X-X-Sender: tom@mgmt.uniserve.ca To: Ade Lovett In-Reply-To: <6BF5AB95-9A4D-4ABD-9717-6623F274CFCD@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20060716205031.K27056@mgmt.uniserve.ca> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Scanner: OK. Scanned. Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Current favorite FC HBA? X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:55:41 -0000 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