Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:09 +0200 (CEST) From: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de> To: "Sergey N. Voronkov" <serg@tmn.ru> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SATA vs SCSI ... Message-ID: <200506270629.j5R6T9dZ050451@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> In-Reply-To: <20050627031918.GA20199@tmn.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > As an result: If you need to have FAST disk subsystem - buy SCSI. If you need > large storage or you don't want to pay to much money - buy SATA. Seconded. SATA offers larger capacity per buck. If price/performance is important, I'd seriously consider the ICP SATA cards. Another note: if you need the fastest disk subsystem you can buy, don't even think about implementing RAID5. Go for 1+0 instead. And buy an ICP card ;-) Another big plus for SCSI: unattended "auto" hot plug. If you have a RAID1+0 with 6 disks and without a hot spare (as we do - we needed "fast" and "as much as we can cram in the box") and if your hot plug backplane ist "SAFE-TE" compliant (another one of those beloved standards), then the cleaning staff could change a broken disk drive. The ICP card will automatically start the necessary rebuild if you exchange a broken disk with a factory new one. This could be important if you need 24x7 and don't have a qualified operator on site all the time. No need to start the RAID config utility. HTH, Patrick M. Hausen Leiter Netzwerke und Sicherheit -- punkt.de GmbH Internet - Dienstleistungen - Beratung Vorholzstr. 25 Tel. 0721 9109 -0 Fax: -100 76137 Karlsruhe http://punkt.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506270629.j5R6T9dZ050451>