don't hold back Jeff. Get it all out. :^)
I have to completely disagree with this. There is nothing slower in a computer/server than the hard drives. Can other portions be bottlenecks, absolutely, but you aren't typically running out of CPU or even memory on a 32-bit system. why do you think most companies go with 2cpu systems vs 4? Becaues CPU isn't the bottleneck (typically) in a 32-bit system. As well, your arguement falls flat because now we are talking about duo-core dies so those blades, 1U's, etc are now 4way boxes and can be taken advantage of in 64-bit implementations.
I'm sorry there is no good arguement for going SATA over SCSI in a TS environment. It's short sighted and your shooting yourself in the foot before you even get off the ground.
Jeff Pitsch Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server Provision Networks VIP
Forums not enough? Get support from the experts at your business http://jeffpitschconsulting.com
On 10/2/06, Melvin.Columna@xxxxxxxxx <Melvin.Columna@xxxxxxxxx > wrote: > > But will it be the smallest bottleneck, might the # of CPUs (specially > in Blade systems) not be another potential bottleneck ? > > I was going chime in last week regarding the warranty, maybe Compaq or > some other only give you a 1 year warranty, but most drives these days (even > PATA) have 3 or 5 year warranty. > > And it is true what Amer said, we had a notorious SCSI HD failure rate > on our IBM X350, X360 and X365 servers--blame Hitachi. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On > Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch > *Sent:* Sunday, October 01, 2006 8:16 PM > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: SATA drives > > > Performance drop. Price is fine, reliablity maybe, but performance is > much worse than SCSI. you are putting in a bottleneck that is unneeded. > You aren't supposed to create your own bottleneck in a TS environment. > > > Jeff Pitsch > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server > Provision Networks VIP > > Forums not enough? > Get support from the experts at your business > http://jeffpitschconsulting.com > > > > On 9/30/06, Amer Karim <amerk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote: > > > > I agree with you wrt to SATA being appropriate dependant on what they > > are going to be used for, and how. However, regarding published failure > > rates and reliability figures - as far as I'm concerned, they're > > meaningless. We went through a wonderful period of about 2 years where we > > were experiencing a failure rate of about 80% (note the missing preceding > > decimal) on brand new U320 SCSI drives (from various manufacturers) - almost > > every one of them brand new, and most within 6 to 12 months of use; > > including one reputation breaking case where every single drive for a new > > SBS server, 6 drives in RAID-1 and RAID-5 w/ hot-spare, failed the burn in; > > we RMA'd those, and when we got the replacements, all of those failed > > again. By then we had swapped out the system board, power supplies, gone > > through 4 different RAID controllers because the Seagate chaps were > > convinced the drives were being blown by the surrounding hardware. We > > decided to switch to IBM drives instead - and had half of them die on > > us. Turned out the problems were being caused by a bug in the drives' > > firmware. We're still seeing a failure rate on U320 SCSI drives, both 10K > > and 15K flavours, which is far greater than it used to be 3 years ago - > > about 1 in 20 on average, and we've RMA'd more SCSI drives in the last 3 > > years than we did in the preceding 10. > > > > Thus, IMO, figures on failure rates and reliability are moot - one bug > > in a firmware revision and that much vaunted integrity and reputation is mud > > as far as a client is concerned. I agree there are some applications where > > SCSI performance is still a necessity - but I no longer consider them the > > holy grail, and if a SATA drive goes south I can replace it in however long > > it takes me to get to the client's site - they're cheap enough, and > > available enough. Keeping my clients systems up and running is what they > > pay me for - and redundancy does a far better job of that than hardware > > 'reliability' and 'failure' figures. > > > > I will also state that up until 2 years ago, I would have, and did, > > walk away from any client who did not want to spend the money on putting > > SCSI drives in their servers. I'm confident enough in the newer SATA/SAS > > technologies that I now consider them viable, and in certain cases > > preferable, alternatives to SCSI. > > > > Regards, > > Amer Karim > > Nautilis Information Systems > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of Roger Riggins > > Sent: September 29, 2006 10:30 PM > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: [THIN] Re: SATA drives > > > > SATA can be an alternative for SCSI if you want cheaper, but can > > accept > > slower and less reliable storage. We found a home for them in our > > D2D2T > > solution, but those specs were acceptable for that project. Everyone's > > requirements are different for every project. Personally, if I'm > > responsible for the equipment or my reputation is on the line, then > > I'm > > going to recommend what I believe to be the best. If I have to > > compromise integrity for price, then I make sure that management > > understands that. I keep an "I told you so" in my back pocket. :) > > > > Check this out-- > > > > Seek times: > > > > SAS Barracuda ES: 8.5/9.5 > > SAS NL35: 8.0/9.0 > > > > SCSI/SAS Cheetah 15k: 3.5/4.0 > > SCSI/SAS Savvio 10k.2: 3.8/4.4 > > > > > > Sustained transfer rate: > > > > SAS Barracuda ES: up to 78 Mbytes/sec > > SAS NL35: up to 65 Mbytes/sec > > > > SCSI/SAS Cheetah 15k: up to 125 Mbytes/sec > > SCSI/SAS Savvio 10k.2: up to 85 Mbytes/sec > > > > > > Annualized Fail Rate at 24x7 operation: > > > > SAS Barracuda ES: .73% > > Others: not listed, probably worse since the Barracuda is supposed to > > be > > their most reliable SATA or probably not rated for 24x7 operation > > > > SCSI/SAS Cheetah 15k: .62% > > SCSI/SAS Savvio 10k.2: .55% > > > > > > So from the numbers, it's safe to say that the SCSI/SAS seek times are > > almost half of SATA. Additionally, the above SATA drives are up to 25% > > > > more likely to fail than a SCSI/SAS drive. That's if you get these new > > ones that are supposed to be more reliable than the others! > > > > Here's an interesting link from the makers of the Barracuda. ;) > > > > http://www.seagate.com/products/interface/sata/targetapp.html > > > > So the bottom line is that SATA is a viable alternative for SCSI/SAS, > > but mostly for specific solutions/projects or very small shops. > > > > Good luck, > > > > Roger Riggins > > Network Administrator > > Lutheran Services in Iowa > > w: 319.859.3543 > > c: 319.290.5687 > > http://www.lsiowa.org > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of Amer Karim > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 6:39 PM > > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: [THIN] Re: SATA drives > > > > The Seagate 3GB/s SATA drives (Barracuda ES) lines have a 5-year > > warranty - and, for the price, I can put 8 of those in a server with > > RAID-10 and RAID-5 with 2 hot-spares for a fraction of the cost of > > SCSI > > for equivalent capacity. In other words, I'd have to disagree with > > the > > comments about SATA not being a viable alternative to SCSI/SAS. And > > throw in an SAS RAID controller, and you've made the migration to SAS > > drives down the road a fairly simple thing as well. The SATA disks > > being referred to in those articles are older tech and better suited > > for > > desktop computers, rather than servers - IMHO. > > > > Regards, > > Amer Karim > > Nautilis Information Systems > > > > > > > > <b>Lutheran Services in Iowa Confidentiality Notice > > ==================================================================</b> > > > > <red>The information contained in this communication may be > > confidential, > > is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and > > may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > > distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its > > contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > > communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately > > and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer > > system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please > > contact the sender.</red>½IRn‰¹(r)¢´zjžz¶z–†ÿÁz¶ƒ² > > > >