[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64



lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) writes:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:18:16PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote:
>> I hardly see how 24 cables versus 2 is hardly even something you'd have 
>> to consider making a choice about.  SCSI channels can take one heck of a 
>> beating, besides, your point is irrelevant since you can have the same 
>> software raid you'd use for SATA over several SCSI channels as well.
>
> I would prefer a hardware SATA raid like the 3ware cards if doing more
> than 2 drives.

Actualy using the onboard SATA on the Hypertransport gives you more
speed than a normal PCI Bus. Not sure if PCI-X can compete speed wise.

Also software raid with many drives will be faster on the cpu then the
card. But it will cost you cpu time. For a fileserver that needs fast
I/O and has nothing else to do software raid will be faster. For
e.g. a database that also needs to compute stuff hardware can
distribute the load better.

So it all depends.

>> Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways 
>> before they go to the SATA channel.
>
> No quite a few new SATA drives are native SATA and are not IDE or SCSI
> internally.

A lot of drives have identical drives and just different motherboards
stuck onto them for the pata/sata/scsi driver.

> The scsi cable shared by all scsi drives in a system is fairly fragile,
> and loosing it looses all drives, and in some cases a drive failure
> takes out the bus too.  With a cable per drive that problem at least
> goes away.  It doesn't solve the issue of what happens if the controller
> dies, but scsi has that issue too unless running multiple controllers on
> the bus (which is an advantage of scsi very few people take advantage
> off.  Maybe SAS will change that).

A dying drive might electrocute the controler. Lets go fiberchannel. :)

> I used to be a scsi fan, and built machines that used scsi instead of
> ide, but not anymore.  SAS I can see a point in, plain scsi I can't.

Scsi is still more robust but one can just buy more disks and do
better raid with ide for the same price to counteract the crappiness
of the individual disk.

> Len Sorensen

MfG
        Goswin



Reply to: