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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
flux writes:
Aha. Everyone else is describing high volume storage servers, not desktops. Which by everyone's description are just as prone to failure. Otherwise, why would one have redundant components? They're less prone to failure but they have heavier workloads and the consequences of failure are higher. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:15:00 GMT, Curious George wrote:
Try connecting a few hundred disks in 4 or 5 racks with SATA cables. Why would you need ANY SATA cables to connect them? There is this thing called a backplane. Surely, there must be a few of these in that big computer room of yours. Because it's point to point stupid. If there are, say 7 disks connected to a normal backplane you need to connect 7 cables to the backplane. That's the purpose of the Serial ATA II Port Multiplier Technology which for all intensive purposes is vaporware or at least immature. & one more thing- you also have to connect the anode & diode wires for the drive activity from the controller to the backplane. It gets so messy that some of the larger controllers don't even bother with individual drive activity. This is why presently the external soho boxes group the drives into a single logical unit and connect to the computer on one SATA channel - but that means max bandwidth is now 150 MB/sec minus overhead for all the drives in the external box in addition to any other limitations/ inefficiencies of this uncommon, low-end solution. Companies that are trying to make SATA fit better for larger enterprise scenario make boxes with a SATA-SCSI bridge. These are not bargain basement/soho cheap & you're still using scsi cabling & HBA's so the economics are somewhat questionable. Very questionable if using Raptors. In short 50 SATA spindles per computer is indeed a mess & not as cheap as you think. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Curious George wrote:
Companies that are trying to make SATA fit better for larger enterprise scenario make boxes with a SATA-SCSI bridge. These are not bargain basement/soho cheap & you're still using scsi cabling & HBA's so the economics are somewhat questionable. Very questionable if using Raptors. This is just as effective and just as foolish as putting a 3.5HP Brigs & Stratton lawnmower engine in a Porsche 911. If you want a system to be like SCSI you should just buy SCSI in the first place. All this dicking around doesn't change the fact that all the wasted money and time you threw at SATA will ever get you to square one. In short 50 SATA spindles per computer is indeed a mess & not as cheap as you think. Why screw with them in the first place? I can see if you're building a novelty toy gaming system for your teenage children you might have something, but deploying this crap in an enterprise environment is totally and utterly foolish. Rita |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Curious George wrote:
Because it's point to point stupid. If there are, say 7 disks connected to a normal backplane you need to connect 7 cables to the backplane. That's the purpose of the Serial ATA II Port Multiplier Technology which for all intensive purposes is vaporware or at least immature. All of which renders it unpractical and useless in real world applications, except, of course, in AMD boxes, which nobody real cares about anyway. SCSI equals one cable per backplane. The options are infinite with SCSI. Rita |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Curious George wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:16:32 GMT, flux wrote: In article 1113587080.671422@smirk, (Ralph Becker-Szendy) wrote: The smallest computer room of mine in the last 8 or so years had 6 racks worth of equipment. The largest has maybe 40 or 50 racks (I haven't counted, since it is shared with a few other people, I know which racks are mine). This doesn't count a large computer room where I was only in charge of a small part (my part was 4 racks, but the whole room must have had several hundred racks worth, as big as 2 football fields; rumor has it that it had over 3000 servers in it). I wonder how else of this is just rumor. Try connecting a few hundred disks in 4 or 5 racks with SATA cables. Why would you need ANY SATA cables to connect them? There is this thing called a backplane. Surely, there must be a few of these in that big computer room of yours. Because it's point to point stupid. If there are, say 7 disks connected to a normal backplane you need to connect 7 cables to the backplane. That's the purpose of the Serial ATA II Port Multiplier That's only if you are connecting the backplane to card. Otherwise, you don't need any cables. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote: flux writes: Aha. Everyone else is describing high volume storage servers, not desktops. Which by everyone's description are just as prone to failure. Otherwise, why would one have redundant components? They're less prone to failure but they have heavier workloads and the There is some generalization here. Some models of equipment such as IBM eSeries and Infortrend RAID controllers, aren't aren't any better than desktops and may even be worse. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote: Curious George wrote: Because it's point to point stupid. If there are, say 7 disks connected to a normal backplane you need to connect 7 cables to the backplane. That's the purpose of the Serial ATA II Port Multiplier Technology which for all intensive purposes is vaporware or at least immature. All of which renders it unpractical and useless in real world applications, except, of course, in AMD boxes, which nobody real cares about anyway. SCSI In other words, they are rapidly becoming popular. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Curious George wrote: & one more thing- you also have to connect the anode & diode wires for the drive activity from the controller to the backplane. It gets so messy that some of the larger controllers don't even bother with individual drive activity. That's true and it's just dumb. This is why presently the external soho boxes group the drives into a single logical unit and connect to the computer on one SATA channel - but that means max bandwidth is now 150 MB/sec minus overhead for all SOHO boxes? Single channels across the whole box? Who's doing that? the drives in the external box in addition to any other limitations/ inefficiencies of this uncommon, low-end solution. Companies that are trying to make SATA fit better for larger enterprise scenario make boxes with a SATA-SCSI bridge. These are not bargain basement/soho cheap & you're still using scsi cabling & HBA's so the economics are somewhat questionable. Very questionable if using Raptors. The economics aren't questionable if you want space. For that, you can't beat Hitachi 7K400s. In short 50 SATA spindles per computer is indeed a mess & not as cheap as you think. Yes, it is. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote: Curious George wrote: Companies that are trying to make SATA fit better for larger enterprise scenario make boxes with a SATA-SCSI bridge. These are not bargain basement/soho cheap & you're still using scsi cabling & HBA's so the economics are somewhat questionable. Very questionable if using Raptors. This is just as effective and just as foolish as putting a 3.5HP Brigs & Stratton lawnmower engine in a Porsche 911. If you want a system to be like SCSI you should just buy SCSI in the first place. All this dicking around doesn't change the fact that all the wasted money and time you threw at SATA will ever get you to square one. In other words it makes a lot of sense. In short 50 SATA spindles per computer is indeed a mess & not as cheap as you think. Why screw with them in the first place? I can see if you're building a novelty toy gaming system for your teenage children you might have something, but deploying this crap in an enterprise environment is totally and utterly foolish. So why is everyone doing that? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seagate Warranties Jump to Five Years | Ablang | General | 0 | August 1st 04 02:43 AM |
Seagate Redesigns Drives (with 73GB to 300GB capacities) | Ablang | General | 0 | May 23rd 04 04:01 AM |
Western Digital, Maxtor or Seagate | @drian | Homebuilt PC's | 26 | October 20th 03 06:24 PM |
Western Digital, Maxtor, Seagate - guess who spams? | tiburón | Homebuilt PC's | 7 | September 29th 03 11:19 PM |
My Maxtor saga | Steve Daly | Storage (alternative) | 25 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |