Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:28:26 -0500 From: Derek Ragona <derek@computinginnovations.com> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>, Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet@esiee.fr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server) Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20060914112701.021d2058@mail.computinginnovations.com> In-Reply-To: <20060914114608.e130c6a0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <45096C88.4030203@esiee.fr> <20060914111843.91BC.GERARD@seibercom.net> <4509768C.5030602@esiee.fr> <20060914114608.e130c6a0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
SATA is still quite limited. To go beyond those limits use SAS, but SAS
costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology.
-Derek
At 10:46 AM 9/14/2006, Bill Moran wrote:
>In response to Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet@esiee.fr>:
>
> > Gerard Seibert wrote:
> > > Frank Bonnet wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >> I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$
> > >
> > > Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with
> > > SATA is not acceptable? Just curious.
> >
> > Because I want it
>
>Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued
>ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches?
>
>Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still
>seems as if:
>a) The performance is still better
>b) The reliability is still better
>
>But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also
>seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16
>devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but
>if you need that many spindles, you need them!
>
>--
>Bill Moran
>Collaborative Fusion Inc.
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
>--
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>believed to be clean.
>MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.0.22.2.20060914112701.021d2058>