I have a VM environment that I look after, and I am running it on FC disk. I can map LUNs from SATA disk if I want, and we do that to other solaris and linux hosts now. We more use SATA for medium term storage, and certainly wouldn't be using it for heavy disk activity. It just depends on how many IO/s you are looking at. Your understanding is correct that it's SCSI over IP, but that doesn't mean that the end of the chain has to be SCSI as well, I prefer to think of SAN / NAS as disk mappers, they don't really have THAT much in the way of smarts on them. Yes, a lot of people use SAN with Exchange and SQL as it's easier for them to manage their storage on a SAN, Exchange, SQL and other systems can work better though with locally attached storage, it just depends on the situation. If you aren't going to be pushing more than a gigabit each way (Or if you were, it would only be for a short period and wouldn't matter if it took an extra couple of seconds) than iSCSI is a lot cheaper way to go than SAN. On top of which, the step that people have just taken is the move to 4Gb SAN connectivity, I know a lot of people that still have 2Gb SANs though. When you think that 1Gb NICs and switches these days are basically a commodity item (You can walk down the local computer store and get a 8 port Gb switch for how much?), think about what's happening down the line with 10Gb Ethernet, and 80 / 100Gb Ethernet. iSCSI was once a poor man's SAN, but in all honesty with the way that ethernet switching is moving, and the speed that disk is moving....I think we are going to see a lot of movement to iSCSI in the future. That's just my opinion though. Berny On 15/02/2008, Patrick <london31uk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks Berny, > > I am just running thru setting up a virtual infrastructure, and was > researching iscsi as an option to host VM's. My understanding is that iscsi > is scsi commands over ip, but the storage array (SAN) disks would have to be > scsi of some sort, but maybe I have got it all wrong. I would be installing > exchange 2003 and 2007, and possibly sql 2005, just as a test environment. > Hear that sinces these apps and block data apps, they are best used with > SAN. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Berny Stapleton <berny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:23:29 PM > Subject: [windows2000] Re: ISCSI with SATA drives ? > > What do you want it for? > > If it's for archive data, then SATA is a lot cheaper and the disks are > larger. If you want it for databases or anything high performance, you > want to look at FC / SCSI / SAS. > > iSCSI is just another way to get to your data, you still have to look > at how much bandwidth you need to the storage system, and how much > throughput you do on the disk. > > Berny > > On 15/02/2008, Patrick <london31uk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Sorry guys, just thought I should ask. Researching ISCSI technology and > have > > seem a few implementaions that use SATA drives instead of true SCSI. I > > thought the whole concept was scsi drives of over native IP. Maybe I am > > getting it all wrong. > > > > Thanks > > > > ________________________________ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > ***************************** > New Site from The Kenzig Group! > Windows Vista Links, list options > and info are available at: > http://www.VistaPop.com > ***************************** > To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation > mode or view archives use the below link. > > http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm > > > > ________________________________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ***************************** New Site from The Kenzig Group! Windows Vista Links, list options and info are available at: http://www.VistaPop.com ***************************** To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation mode or view archives use the below link. http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm