If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Toomas Soome wrote: Tim Boyer wrote: In about six months, I'm going to be in the market for a 2TB system, and will have to make some of the same choices. Rita, _why_ is SCSI so much better than SATA? current data transfer rates (lets not argue about possible future numbers, I have some but never done research for them): SATA: 150Mb/s (up to 1.5Gb/s?) No. 150 MB/sec. 3 Gb/sec hardware is shipping, not that it has any real-world relevance. It has for concentrators/expanders/portmultipliers (whatever they call it). All allocated to a single device. No drive on the market, SCSI or SATA, is capable of sustained transfers at anything close to this rate, so it's adequate for any purpose. Not if that drive is 1 of 4 hanging off a concentrator in a RAID configuration. SCSI: 320Mb/s Shared among up to 15 devices. To 4 actually for simultanious access. 15 can be physically attached but aren't expected to run simultaniously. No clear advantage to SCSI here unless you give each device a separate channel, which gets hugely expensive very quickly. SAS: 3Gb/s (roadmap up to 12Gb/s)? Again, though, shared. Nope, unless we are talking of an expander. And you're interchanging bits and bytes. That's about 300 MB/sec. FC-AL: 2Gb/s (roadmap up to 10Gb/s ?) Again, shared. And that's roughly 200 MB/sec when you allow for overhead. reliability: SCSI MTBF 1,200,000 hours, many SATA drives only run to 600,000 MTBF This has nothing to do with SATA vs SCSI--look up the specs on WD Raptors and you'll find that same 1,200,000 MTBF. If you want enterprise-class storage get enterprise-class storage. (http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/...294586,00.html) and some real numbers as well regarding to reliability: Deskstar 7K400, http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/7k400/7k400.htm Error rate (non-recoverable) 1 in 10E14 Start/stops (at 40° C) 50,000 Ultrastar 15K147 http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/15k147/15k147.htm Error rate (non-recoverable) 1 in 10E15 Start/stops (at 40° C) 50,000 And if you look at the Raptor you'll find again 1 in 10E15. in general, SATA will not replace SCSI anytime "soon", high end SCSI will still outperform SATA in many terms... but SATA does definitely have it's place as well. While this is true, it is not for any of the reasons you stated. SCSI does have a few real advantages--there's a lot more in the way of enterprise-class host adapters and array cabinets and the like available for one thing. For another it allows _much_ longer cables. For a third, for now the fastest SATA drives do not match the speed or capacity of the fastest SCSI drives, and for 10K RPM SATA drives there's no second source--that last is a marketing issue, not a technical one--there's no reason that 15K RPM SATA drives can't be produced by multiple vendors, it's just that so far they've decided not to. Further, it's all rather far afield as the problem the OP is describing isn't really addressed by any of this. His basic problem remains that he got a substandard array controller. toomas |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
flux wrote: In article , Toomas Soome wrote: current data transfer rates (lets not argue about possible future numbers, I have some but never done research for them): SATA: 150Mb/s (up to 1.5Gb/s?) SCSI: 320Mb/s SAS: 3Gb/s (roadmap up to 12Gb/s)? FC-AL: 2Gb/s (roadmap up to 10Gb/s ?) These numbers may also be irrelevant depending on how the data is being accessed. If, for example, you are connected to a server over Ethernet, even SATA is faster (taking the numbers at face value) than gigabit. reliability: SCSI MTBF 1,200,000 hours, many SATA drives only run to 600,000 MTBF (http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/...sid5gci1001942 tax294586,00.html) What do those numbers actually mean? 1,200,000 hours is 136 years. So this number taken at face value is pretty silly because it's essentially saying it won't be until sometime in 22nd century before just first SCSI hard disk anywhere on Earth fails! That's not the service life--it doesn't take wear into consideration. Of course it does. If you have say 140 drives then you should expect one failure every year out of that 140. Only if it runs 24/7 and the MTBF is based on 24/7 POH. Even not taken these numbers at face value, who is going to buy SATA drives and keep them for several years? As long as they last through the warranty period, you can just buy new ones. They are, after all, very cheap. And you can bet the next generation will be bigger, better, faster (e.g, SATA II), and cheaper. For enterprise storage replacing drives every two years would be very costly. The price of the drives is peanuts compared to the cost of downtime. So you configure your system for minimal downtime based on redundancy, not single drive MTBF. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
have to make some of the same choices. Rita, _why_ is SCSI so much better
than SATA? Drives themselves are better, SATA interface is used for medium-class models, while SCSI is for high-end ones. SCSI supports disconnects (parallel work of several drives on the same cable) and tagged queue (the drive is aware of the IO request queue and can reorder it itself using the information like rotation and actuator positions accessible to firmware but not accessible to the OS). ATA support for these features is pathetic, and not supported yet in many OSes like Windows. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
have to make some of the same choices. Rita, _why_ is SCSI so much better than SATA? Drives themselves are better, SATA interface is used for medium-class models, while SCSI is for high-end ones. What specific features or characteristics the WD Raptors as "medium-class"? SCSI supports disconnects (parallel work of several drives on the same cable) SATA supports one drive per cable, so how would this be useful with SATA? and tagged queue (the drive is aware of the IO request queue and can reorder it itself using the information like rotation and actuator positions accessible to firmware but not accessible to the OS). ATA support for these features is pathetic, and not supported yet in many OSes like Windows. I see. So what specific properties make SCSI command queuing superior to both the command queuing methods available with SATA? -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Peter" wrote: You are completely wrong (did you ever studied statistics?). Reread what I wrote carefully, and you will see that is quite correct. Yes, I did. You have said: "So this number taken at face value is pretty silly because it's essentially saying it won't be until sometime in 22nd century before just first SCSI hard disk anywhere on Earth fails!" No your understanding is NOT correct, MTBF number does not imply that! No, you are still misunderstanding. I was *intentionally* reading it as a literal value. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote: On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:13:57 GMT, flux wrote: In article , "J. Clarke" wrote: For enterprise storage replacing drives every two years would be very costly. The price of the drives is peanuts compared to the cost of downtime. This seems to imply nobody ever buys new equipment. No, it doesn't. It implies that enterprises would rather replace drives every three years, not every two, and would rather replace them every four years than every three, etc. How is three years any signficantly less costly than two? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote: Now, has it dawned on you that even the most rudimentary of network servers has multiple NICs? Why do you think that is? Are server manufacturers silly? That's a very recent developlment. Even gigabit is relatively recent. I strongly suspect that all your experience has been with the trivial case, where you have (at most) a few file-sharing clients on a network. In these case, you are right. But there's no money in that market, since any fool can build such a system. What other market is there? Where *hard* problems are, at least for those of us in comp.arch.storage, it is assumed that the network problem is already solved. Need 10GB/sec of network bandwidth and don't have a 10G Ethernet? Simply trunk 10 1000BaseT nets to your switch! Cisco (and the like) can handle that part of the problem. Again, this sounds very rare. Where are there disks fast enough to saturate this much Ethernet? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Nik Simpson" wrote: But they are basing their warranty calculations on how the drive is used, and (with the exception of WD's 10K drives) they expect them to go into PC devices which don't run 24x7, so the MTBF is expected to be stretched because the drive is spending a good deal of its time doing very little or powered down. The Tivo I have attached to my TV streams video to disk 24/7. That's a consumer appliance! In an ordinary office environment, how would backups get accomplished if the computers are running 24/7? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote: Ask any marketing professional about "take up" rates. For any offer, service, or program that a manufacturer provides, some proportion of customers won't take advantage of it even when they could. Sometimes this is because they lose necessary documentation, other times because they forget, and still more because they don't care about replacing the failed unit with another equivalent unit (e.g. if you're going through the hassle of replacing the thing, why not upgrade at the same time?) Or it could simply be the case that the drives are more reliable than you believe. A logical rebuttal might be that manufacturers could offer lifetime warranties on SCSI drives because they are just that durable, but a warranty that long doesn't make sense from a marketing point of view because the manufacturers do want their customers to upgrade eventually. You call *that* "logical"? yes. Do you really believe that the same proportion of people take manufacturers up on the warranty after (say) 3 years as do after 1 month? No, they probably upgrade. But wait didn't someone just say the cost of upgrading is peanuts compared to the cost of downtime. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I did. You have said:
"So this number taken at face value is pretty silly because it's essentially saying it won't be until sometime in 22nd century before just first SCSI hard disk anywhere on Earth fails!" No your understanding is NOT correct, MTBF number does not imply that! No, you are still misunderstanding. I was *intentionally* reading it as a literal value. I don't think you will get anywhere with that sort of interpretation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
.cl3 / adaptec | Lo Dolce Pesca | General | 0 | April 10th 04 01:51 AM |
Adaptec vs. Western Digital. Who is DEGRADED? Who is FOS? | Brian | General | 0 | January 13th 04 05:16 PM |
What the heck did I do wrong? Fried my A7N8X Deluxe? | Don Burnette | Asus Motherboards | 19 | December 1st 03 06:41 AM |
Can the Adaptec 3210S do RAID 1+5? | Rick Kunkel | Storage & Hardrives | 2 | October 16th 03 02:25 AM |
Install Problems with an Adaptec 2400a RAID Controller! | Starz_Kid | General | 1 | June 24th 03 03:44 AM |