SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)

[Derek Ragona]

SATA is still quite limited.  To go beyond those limits use SAS, but SAS 
costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology.

         -Derek


At 10:46 AM 9/14/2006, Bill Moran wrote:
>In response to Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet at esiee.fr>:
>
> > Gerard Seibert wrote:
> > > Frank Bonnet wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >> I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$
> > >
> > > Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with
> > > SATA is not acceptable? Just curious.
> >
> >   Because I want it
>
>Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued
>ATA?  Such as crappy quality and lying caches?
>
>Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still
>seems as if:
>a) The performance is still better
>b) The reliability is still better
>
>But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings.  It also
>seems as if SATA is more limiting.  Most SCSI cards can support 16
>devices, does SATA have similar offerings?  I know it's not common, but
>if you need that many spindles, you need them!
>
>--
>Bill Moran
>Collaborative Fusion Inc.
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
>--
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>believed to be clean.
>MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.