Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:55:27 +0100 From: "Frank Leonhardt (m)" <frank2@fjl.co.uk> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+m@aldan.algebra.com>, "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org." <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Do I need SAS drives?.. Message-ID: <362B0950-A244-4C65-89C7-898EFC6A4A1F@fjl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4DFBCE11-913A-4FC9-937D-463B4D49816C@aldan.algebra.com> References: <4DFBCE11-913A-4FC9-937D-463B4D49816C@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Simple answer is to use either. You're running FreeBSD with ZFS, right? BSD will hot plug anything. I suspect 'hot plug' relates to Microsoft workaround hardware RAID. Hot plug enclosures will also let the host know a drive has been pulled. Otherwise ZFS won't know whether it was pulled or is unresponsive due to it being on fire or something. With 8 drives in your array you can probably figure this out yourself. SAS drives use SCSI commands, which are supposedly better than SATA commands. Electrically they are the same. SAS drives are more expensive and tend to be higher spec mechanically, but not always so. Incidentally, nearline SAS is a cheaper SATA drive that understands SAS protocol and has dual ports. Marketing. Basically, if you really want speed at all costs go for SAS. If you want best capacity for your money, go SATA. If in doubt, go for SATA. If you don't know you need SAS for some reason, you probably don't. Regards, Frank. On 9 August 2017 15:27:37 BST, "Mikhail T." <mi+m@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: >My server has 8 "hot-plug" slots, that can accept both SATA and SAS >drives. SATA ones tend to be cheaper for the same features (like >cache-sizes), what am I getting for the extra money spent on SAS? > >Asking specifically about the protocol differences... It would seem, >for example, SATA can not be as easily hot-plugged, but with >camcontrol(8) that should not be a problem, right? What else? Thank >you! >-- >Sent from mobile device, please, pardon shorthand. > > >-- >Sent from mobile device, please, pardon shorthand. >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list >https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >"freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From owner-freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Wed Aug 9 15:29:54 2017 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org> Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B66ADCF7D8 for <freebsd-hardware@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:29:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72DA076047 for <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:29:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BE821E1E for <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:29:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=XjIQZC a/Fx92kXw3EGonRahA1Gq54/d3LwvcauKBww0=; b=f68nxfIspqbkXdzoMeAgyt uaBXQqHRUcL2ndafiNpoZyBD/EORljHyQtMWC/Eu6RcSdh7eeYDvIcRBiVPVE2bR n3DNdf12T5G6fSquzakmZUKPzvcZAavRsxqgbAF6QsDjEy8h6rH2AE0hDqdgdYjq YW0FM0R9ufGanvlD5qwGJ24zkqBRV8GMnVDfFd+LUzF5TBhR35qMZVKKGGcZWLkY VKsy+iN948liRXOcp5uO6VWM+V1jbnbfEuNeyrUD0uxrENCD4W4giQlEMiddNKPA NGhmhfJYoBfl+mjLZXCTz6gB73Qi5TzJ4SGNCwxW6rZzTxJCz42EAGMeVBWXpAIw == X-ME-Sender: <xms:cCqLWWyRqB5Rnj09CPXLlYKfUhimIfBt2TU0geKIsc0u2JFTivGXtw> Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id BA6D29E772; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1502292592.2001426.1068163912.1191A246@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-b56c1ff4 In-Reply-To: <362B0950-A244-4C65-89C7-898EFC6A4A1F@fjl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Do I need SAS drives?.. References: <4DFBCE11-913A-4FC9-937D-463B4D49816C@aldan.algebra.com> <362B0950-A244-4C65-89C7-898EFC6A4A1F@fjl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:29:52 -0500 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware <freebsd-hardware.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hardware>, <mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hardware/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware>, <mailto:freebsd-hardware-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:29:54 -0000 On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 09:55 AM, Frank Leonhardt (m) wrote: > Simple answer is to use either. You're running FreeBSD with ZFS, right? > BSD will hot plug anything. I suspect 'hot plug' relates to Microsoft > workaround hardware RAID. > > Hot plug enclosures will also let the host know a drive has been pulled. > Otherwise ZFS won't know whether it was pulled or is unresponsive due to > it being on fire or something. With 8 drives in your array you can > probably figure this out yourself. > > SAS drives use SCSI commands, which are supposedly better than SATA > commands. Electrically they are the same. SAS drives are more expensive > and tend to be higher spec mechanically, but not always so. Incidentally, > nearline SAS is a cheaper SATA drive that understands SAS protocol and > has dual ports. Marketing. > > Basically, if you really want speed at all costs go for SAS. If you want > best capacity for your money, go SATA. If in doubt, go for SATA. If you > don't know you need SAS for some reason, you probably don't. > > Regards, Frank. > > > On 9 August 2017 15:27:37 BST, "Mikhail T." <mi+m@aldan.algebra.com> > wrote: > >My server has 8 "hot-plug" slots, that can accept both SATA and SAS > >drives. SATA ones tend to be cheaper for the same features (like > >cache-sizes), what am I getting for the extra money spent on SAS? > > > >Asking specifically about the protocol differences... It would seem, > >for example, SATA can not be as easily hot-plugged, but with > >camcontrol(8) that should not be a problem, right? What else? Thank > >you! > >-- I have a different take on this. For starters SAS and SATA aren't electrically compatible. There's a reason SAS drives are keyed so you can't plug them in to a SATA controller. It keeps the magic smoke inside the drive. SAS controllers can tunnel SATA (They confusingly call this STP (Not Spanning Tree Protocol, but SATA Tunneling Protocol) It's imperfect but good enough for 8 drives. You really do not want to put 60 SATA drives in a SAS JBOD) SAS can be a shared fabric, which means a group of drives are like a room full of people having a conversation. If someone starts screaming and spurting blood it can disrupt the conversations of everyone in the room. Modern RAID controllers are pretty good at disconnecting drives that are not working properly but not completely dead. Modern HBAs not so much. If your controller is an HBA trying to keep a SAS fabric stable with SATA drives can be more problematic than if you use SAS drives...and as Frank pointed out nearline SAS drives are essentially SATA drives with a SAS interface (and are typically under a $20 premium) If performance was an issue we'd be talking about SSDs. While SAS drives do have a performance advantage over SATA in multiuser/multiapplication environments (they have a superior queuing implementation) it's not worth considering when the real solution is SSDs. My recommendation is if you have SAS expanders and an HBA use SAS drives. If you have direct wired SAS or a RAID controller you can use either SAS or SATA. If your application demands performance or concurrency get a couple SSDs. They'll smoke anything any spinning drive can do. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?362B0950-A244-4C65-89C7-898EFC6A4A1F>