[nSLUG] overview DB and inn

Jeff Warnica jeff at coherentnetworksolutions.com
Tue Mar 7 16:36:20 AST 2006


On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 12:09 -0400, Rich wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have to agree with DOP on this. Servers should always be SCSI. IDE is
> fine for low-usage server, or a desktop.  A few years ago, I remember
> when DataGeneral was moving towards IDE drives, that changed after the
> first year or so, when they went back to SCSI.  I remember getting into


There are three things at issue. 

First would be a technical comparison of IDE vs SCSI. SCSI is better. It
does more then just in-the-case storage devices. Its a multi-layer
protocol; it can run over FC hardware or IP logical networks. Other
things besides storage can run on it; scanners, terminal servers. But
For point to point / host to disk connections, SATA is good enough. With
NCQ, the major technological problem is mitigated, if not eliminated.

Second would be the target market. SCSI things have historically been
targeted at high end systems; PATA, not. This may not count as a bullet
point, as it leads directly to:

Third, would be the actual devices on the market. You cant get (or only
recently have been able to get) 15K SATA disks. Its hard to find SATA
disks with >3 year warranty's.  This has to do with marketing, and
legacy, but not really with technology.

Western digital currently sells a 150GB 10K SATA disk with a 5 year
warranty. The market is changing.


Rackmount RAID systems with internal SATA, and external iSCSI and/or //
SCSI should be considered for anything that can't justify a FC SAN. I
think that a Linux box with SATA disks,  LVM, and RAID, acting as an
iSCSI target should be considered for storage consolidation for server
rooms with minimal or no budget for everything except fire fighting.


!DSPAM:440df171149971280818708!




More information about the nSLUG mailing list