LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

Mutt Joined: 07 May 2001 Posts: 102 Location: USA

Part of my group project for WAN class is to update 8 international sites. One of the must on the list is to replace current servers with new ones. My group, well actually just two of us, are debating between getting a SCSI or Serial ATA RAID setup (maybe even a SAN setup). I know SCSI would be the best but our project is very limited on funds, $1.5 million, and we have to do 8 international sites! minimum of 2 servers per sites, heres some daily stats

e-mail - between 70-500MB of sent out
engineers ftp - 192MB-465MB sent between locations

As you can see, an yearly total would be no more than 200GB per site, some are less than 100GB. Personally I think a SAN setup would be overkill, espcially on our budget.

I looked into these two products

http://www.boxxtech.com/asp/cf_step2.asp?ModelInstanceID=166
http://www.boxxtech.com/asp/cf_step2.asp?ModelInstanceID=158

putting aside the system specs (no intel vs amd please) and focusing on the storage. which storage would best suit the needs of the project.

SATA - 2.0TB RAID 5 storage w/ Hot spare (10x250GB 7200rpm SATA150) [Add $3128]
- or -
SCSI - 1460GB RAID 5 storage w/ Hot Spare (12x146GB 10k U320) [Add $10552]

no doubt the SATA is a better price per GB, but how reiliable are they? do you know of any real companies that use SATA RAIDs?

Also the links between sites wont be Super! most likely frame relays that cap at 2Mbps.

Any suggestions or help is apperciated Wink

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:48 am Post subject:

This article touches on the subject.

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:05 am Post subject:

Quote:
On specifications, SATA is closing in on SCSI and in some respects may even eventually overtake it, but is SATA ready right now? Clark says that SATA is not designed to, nor is it expected to, surpass the specific capabilities of the SCSI interface. "SCSI offers a much richer command set than SATA 1.0 or SATA II," states Clark. She also says that because SCSI has a myriad of built-in features and protocols, it is easier to customize to a specific application, giving customers the freedom that they have become accustomed to.

my thoughts exactly!

Shrooms.. what it comes down to is performance of the drives and load on the servers. If you think the SATA drives are capable of performing as you/your company requires... then by all means save your self the cash.

Personally... i am doubtful. SATA may bring SCSI features and performance into the house, but SATA cannot beat the long term performance and reliability of SCSI drives.