Choosing Serial ATA RAID 5 controller for FBSD 4.9

[Lanny Baron]

For every 1 SCSI disk failure, you will get about 10 ide disk failures.

The MTBF for SCSI drives is ~ 50% of ide. 

IDE or ata disks are used in desktops and in Servers. If one is using a
Server for Samba (file & print) services then ata disks are fine. As
long as you are using a decent (3ware) ata/sata raid controller.

SCSI disks are much more suited to e-commerce (database) and other high
i/o bound or related services.

The ata/sata disks we use anyway, have 3 year warranties while SCSI
disks have 5 year warranties.

Lanny

On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 09:52, Palle Girgensohn wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 25, 2004 15:04:23 -0500 Simon <simon at optinet.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Have you tried searching the archives? this was discussed several times.
> > 3ware works fine. While you are not explaining what heavy load means,
> > you might want to go with SCSI RAID instead. You may not save as much
> > as you think with IDE in a long run and get a much better performance if
> > you have heavy I/O (heavy use of database).
> 
> Simon,
> 
> A bit off-topic, what do you mean "may not save as much ... with IDE in a 
> long run"?
> 
> Is their MTBF worse, or are you just relating to performance?
> 
> /Palle
> 
> 
> >
> > -Simon
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:40:06 +0300, Artem Koutchine wrote:
> >
> >> We are trying to build a havy load web 2U server using
> >> Serial ATA RAID 5 controller. The server will run FreeBSD 4.9
> >> and we need a raid card which is supported by 4.9.
> >> Another 'must' for the card is that it must be a real hardware
> >> RAID 5. Other 'musts' - the card must be LP (low prifile
> >> pci card), support PCI 64bit, be real SATA, not just a bridge.
> >>
> >> Also, it should have nice cache size.
> >>
> >> For far there are only two candidates:
> >> 1) 3Ware 8506-4
> >> 2) Adaptec 2410SA
> >>
> >> IFAIK there are people running FBSD 4.9 on
> >> 3Ware 8506-4, however, W3ware 8xxx  card are not listed
> >> in the supported hardware for 4.9-RELEASE. Is it just
> >> a mistake or it is really not supported or not fully supported?
> >> Also, 3Ware 85xx oficially does not have any cache, however,
> >> i have found somewhere that it does have it and the cache is 2MB,
> >> which is puny. Is it a big deal? Does it really affect perfomance (the
> >> card will be running at least 3 drives each with 4-8MB of cache on its
> >> own).
> >>
> >> Adaptec 2410SA seems to be just perfect. Real hardware, 64MB Cache,
> >> raid level migration, auto rebuilding and other features. However, i have
> >> only
> >> some one person running it on 5.2. Can it be run  on 4.9? How stable are
> >> the drivers? What is better - stay with 4.9 and 3ware or try using 5.2 in
> >> production environment with Adaptec?
> >>
> >> The server will go in production by the end of april 2004, maybe 5.2
> >> will be stable enough by then to run it in production?
> >>
> >> Any thoughts and comments will be apriciated.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Artem
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-hardware at freebsd.org mailing list
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> >> "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-hardware at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hardware at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Lanny Baron
Proud to be 100% FreeBSD
http://www.FreeBSDsystems.COM
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=