[THIN] Re: SATA drives
- From: "Landin, Mark" <Mark.Landin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:33:03 -0500
Try using a ZIP drive as your swap volume. That was not a good day...
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Steve Ens
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:15 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: SATA drives
I was wondering why my TS is so slow, those 4200RPM IDE drives don't cut it I
guess ;-)
On 10/2/06, Jeff Pitsch < jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx> >
wrote:
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
<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 <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
<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 <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
<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>ÂÂIRnâÂÂÂÂzÂjÅzÂzââÃÃzÂÆÂ
Other related posts:
