Sorry, I know.
I just feel very strongly about this and getting the most of out the
hardware you have. I'm going to shut up now. :(
On 10/2/06, Greg Reese <gareese@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> don't hold back Jeff. Get it all out. :^)
>
>
>
> On 10/3/06, Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
