[ale] RAID 10 Question

Greg Clifton gccfof5 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 17:12:05 EDT 2011


Sorry, poorly phrased question on my part. Obviously faster RPM slings more
data under the heads faster and yes you can get 10k SATA drives and 15k SAS
drives and of course the prices go up as the spindle speed goes up. I failed
to state it but was assuming equivalent capacity & same RPM for both
interfaces. The main question was, whether there is an advantage of SAS vs
SATA  with similar/same spec drives.

Customer wants 2TB of storage and to run ESXi 5  with Windows Multipoint w/
10 clients + Win SBS 2008 + SQL Server + Sharepoint in VMs. So, not a
home theater environment, more of a production environment. With this being
the case, I suppose the 15k SAS drives would be the better choice if we can
fit them into the budget.



On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Tavarvess Ware <tavarvessware at gmail.com>wrote:

> Has anyone tried the hybrid drives?
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ------------------------------
> From: Dennis Ruzeski
> Sent: 9/23/2011 3:14 PM
>
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] RAID 10 Question
>
> Careful with the word faster in this context-- Higher RPM == Faster random
> seek times.
>
> SAS drives can be had up to 15k (with a significant price increase).
>
> --Dennis
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Lightner, Jeff <JLightner at water.com>wrote:
>
>>   rpm = revolutions per minute rather than RedHat Package Manager in this
>> context.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> In our largest disk array we have SSD, SAS and SATA.   The SAS are 10,000
>> RPM but the SATA are only 7200 RPM so the former are faster.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim
>> Kinney
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2011 2:57 PM
>> *To:* Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
>> *Subject:* Re: [ale] RAID 10 Question****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> $(x4 1 TB sata) < $(x1 1TB sas)
>> Both are 3Gbps but sas has faster rpm and higher heat tolerance.
>> But sata is easier to replace before failure due to cost. Replace every 4
>> years with a 5 year warranty drive and send it to a desktop.****
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2011 2:50 PM, "Greg Clifton" <gccfof5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > For a relatively small (2TB capacity) RAID 10 array comprised of 4x1TB
>> hard
>> > drives, is there any performance/reliability advantage in using SAS
>> drives
>> > vs SATA drives?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > GC****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Athena®, Created for the Cause™
>>
>> Making a Difference in the Fight Against Breast Cancer
>>
>>  *Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or
>> attachments.*
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential
>> information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are
>> not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of
>> the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
>> have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply
>> immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and
>> delete it. Thank you.
>> ----------------------------------****
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20110923/33329761/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Ale mailing list