I'm curious for everyones opinion on this matter:

From my experience reading these forums for the past year or so, most companies are running your typical white box servers with IDE drives.

I was just wondering if there any companies out there that use "high end" gear (sun boxes, scsi/fibre arrays, something other than redhat, something other than cpanel/plesk/etc).

What are their prices like? Customer base?

Thanks

There are some webhosts out there running higher performance servers ;)

But I wouldn't expect to see very many of those hosts running unlimited or 20/year services.

(serious tone) might want to try cyberwings (/serious tone)

Originally posted by hosthero
(serious tone) might want to try cyberwings (/serious tone)

According to everything i've read, you should use (joking tone)(/joking tone)

I am NOT looking to choose a hosting company, rather doing some research.

Computers have become so fast that the standard is now a higher-end than a few years ago. If you can really tell the difference between a 7600RPM IDE disk hosting your site, and a 15,000RPM SCSI, let me know. I'd be more concerned with the connectivity and peering of the provider than the hardware.

Originally posted by Richard Ward
Computers have become so fast that the standard is now a higher-end than a few years ago. If you can really tell the difference between a 7600RPM IDE disk hosting your site, and a 15,000RPM SCSI, let me know. I'd be more concerned with the connectivity and peering of the provider than the hardware.


There are MANY differences, some quite noticeable.
Most systems only support up to 4 IDE devices (2 per channel).

Setup a test and compare sustained data transfer speeds between scsi and ide, you'll note a difference.

And seeing as how i'm at WHT... "you get what you pay for"
It's all about budgets.

There are MANY differences, some quite noticeable. Setup a test and compare sustained data transfer speeds between scsi and ide, you'll note a difference.

if your site is going to push these kind of devices, you shouldnt be looking for shared hosting.

something other than redhat, something other than cpanel/plesk/etc



Whats wrong with redhat and cpanel and plesk? if you think a host is going to sit there and manually type in all the configurations, i think it would be silly. There are other options, but not in a shared environment.

I was just wondering if there any companies out there that use "high end" gear (sun boxes, scsi/fibre arrays, something other than redhat, something other than cpanel/plesk/etc). Well... we do not use SUN We do use SCSI Arrays. We do use RH (custom compiled) and we do use something other than cpanel/plesk/etc....

p.s.
I agree that there is a noticeable difference between IDE and SCSI I also believe your choice of hardware is just as important as your choice of connectivity and peering points. I don't care how fast you get to the server if the server itself is slow or crashed.

Originally posted by Richard Ward
Computers have become so fast that the standard is now a higher-end than a few years ago. If you can really tell the difference between a 7600RPM IDE disk hosting your site, and a 15,000RPM SCSI, let me know. I'd be more concerned with the connectivity and peering of the provider than the hardware.

Try about a massive difference =)

Administering a server with a 7200 rpm IDE drive is a nightmare compared to an Ultra 160 SCSI drive.

7200 can put out about 17? megs a second, compared to 165 megs a second from a 10000 RPM scsi drive.

It is an incredible difference when you manage them, and definitely shows with MySQL processes.

Databases LOVE many heads writing and reading, and 7200 RPM toys just don't cut it in the long run unless they are used very sparingly for non mission critical, or even lower uses.

Try it, buy an adapter, or motherboard with on board scsi, stick a 4 to 900 dollar SCSI drive in it, and benchmark the SCSI against ANY ide drive you have and you will understand.

Originally posted by Samuel

7200 can put out about 17? megs a second, compared to 165 megs a second from a 10000 RPM scsi drive.


100 megabytes per second for Ultra ATA 100 (mode 5). That's just one theoretical statistic, and rarely relevant. For example, a typical 10K RPM SCSI drive can run on a Ultra320 chain and theoretically transfer 320 MB/sec. But sustained throughput is actually in the 32 to 55 range (see Maxtor Atlas III datasheet).

But average seek time is more important; 9ms or below is easy to find on any drive, SCSI or IDE. SCSI's only real advantage is in having multiple spindles on one chain, provided the system is busy enough for that to make a difference. Then again, IDE comes with two chains per motherboard, and you can add more. And you do have lots of RAM in your operating system, with good caching code, right?

Of course, you were talking about databases, not shared hosting servers. Fair enough. I'll be kind enough not to mention failure scenarios or the traditional necessity of sacrificing a goat to your SCSI chain ;-)

I also left out cost.

Why am I posting on a religious topic?

Kevin

And sustained megabytes per second for an IDE drive?, you left that out

You stated it was rarely relavant, then went on to extrapolate on the details of the "Rarely Relevant" part concerning SCSI drives ... lol

Seriously, there is a huge difference. The bench on the Ultra 160 10k drives I am using to post this message is considerable compared to the IDE drives.

THe 100 gb IDE drives you mention have a failure rate that is considerable in the IBM series, and personally 400 to 800 for a drive is nothing...

110 bucks for an ide drive? You aren't investing, you're gambling.

My experience is with the Quantum ATLAS 10k 36LS SCSI's, have 3 of them under the desk, as well as several smaller discs and they have outperformed, outlasted every IDE drive I have ever touched in several ways.

You know when you are on a scsi system, and or server if you have enough experience with them.

Originally posted by Samuel
110 bucks for an ide drive? You aren't investing, you're gambling.


One of the best statements ever.

Originally posted by goodness0001




Whats wrong with redhat and cpanel and plesk? if you think a host is going to sit there and manually type in all the configurations, i think it would be silly. There are other options, but not in a shared environment.

How about custom solutions?

I'm sorry, but the market here seems to be for $100 servers that have a default install of RedHat and one of the control panels that are popular around here.

I think that's silly.

Oh.. and not to mention SCSI controllers offload some of the overhead (resources) as IDE sucks it all from the system.

There would be a market out there for the higher end type servers. Probably the dual P4 chips, 4*36GB SCSI drives with RAID5 config, 4GB RAM etc...but it'll cost you an arm and a leg for the server and for subsequent accounts on that server, depending on the size of your account etc.

Originally posted by Samuel
And sustained megabytes per second for an IDE drive?, you left that out


I'm sorry, it was late. Otherwise I would never post on a religious topic. Sustained transfer rate for the IDE leaderboard drive on http://www.storagereview.com/ is 29.2 to 48.8 MB/sec. Just slightly below the sustained transfer as identified by Maxtor on their datasheet for the SCSI leaderboard drive. The testing done by storagereview yielded 31.8 to 53.9 MB/sec for that drive, very similar to the datasheet.

But as I was saying, it's still not a statistic that's likely to be relevant for Web hosting. 30 MB/sec is 240 Mbits/sec. Are you streaming data out of your server at 240 Mbits/sec? And it's all sequential on the disk, as if one visitor is retrieving data at 240 Mbits/sec? The only application in hosting that is even close to this scenario is backing up data, and since hosting is mostly a variety of small files (relative to the sustained transfer speed), you wouldn't be doing sustained transfers.


Seriously, there is a huge difference. The bench on the Ultra 160 10k drives I am using to post this message is considerable compared to the IDE drives.


I don't doubt that it is quick and responsive for you. But by bench, I presume you mean the benchmarks, not the subjective comparison you're making? Do you have extensive experience with both alternatives?


THe 100 gb IDE drives you mention have a failure rate that is considerable in the IBM series, and personally 400 to 800 for a drive is nothing...


So, you're rich, is that what you mean? Am I supposed to be impressed? Cost analysis has no place in your business?

If a particular brand or series has reliability problems, stop buying them. Swap them out, RMA them, etc. This happens with SCSI just as easily; the drives are usually all built in the same place, even with the same hardware in some cases.


You know when you are on a scsi system, and or server if you have enough experience with them.

OK, I'll bow out. I should never have posted on a religious topic. Obviously, you know lots more about SCSI and IDE than I ever possibly could :uhh:

Seriously, though, everyone should use whatever works for them, whatever that means. But no one should presume to know what everyone needs.

Kevin

It's not a religious thing, it's if your budget can afford optimal performance or not.

You'd be clearly in an altered state of mind if they both could be obtained for the same price and you opted for IDE.

SCSI and IDE drives are pretty much alike, on the outside.
The controller board(forget the exact name) on scsi drives does a lot more than IDE (command queues (better drive latency), read aheads, predictions (caches data that it *thinks* will be used within that time period), automatically move data on a failing block to a good block and mark the old block as bad, and i'm sure i've missed some pointers)

Originally posted by clockwork
..You'd be clearly in an altered state of mind if they both could be obtained for the same price and you opted for IDE...

Can newer SCSI technology really be obtained for the same price as newer IDE technology? If so, you should convince more dedicated server providers to offer it (at the same price). We'd use it, then.

If we ever had a customer that required more performance, and they could pay for it, we'll set them up with whatever custom solution they need. But currently, it's not our standard offering.

I'm sure that there are some companies out there that use it and either are offering higher performance packages and charging more, or are putting more customers per server. Or possibly, just operating with a higher overhead.

I know most virtual server solutions out there offered by Interland and Verio are on SCSI.

As one of those hosts that does pay the extra for SCSI and does NOT oversell I can sum it up with --- Performance is GREAT; Ability to compete with IDE hosts on amount of disk space offered is a different story.

Yep, but then that's why I don't compete with the WHT offers, I only offer "Help" to someone I think deserves it, or might need a leg up, but these 1.95 a month 650 meg deals are continuing to make this industry a farce.

raid-5 for high-performance web hosting servers
raid-10 for db server

scsi u160 of course

Originally posted by sigma
Religious battle, impressing etc
Kevin

I am not trying to impress you.

400 to 800 is nothing compared to the cost of losing the data, sorry I didn't finish the sentence.

110 bucks for a drive, where the actual customer data is living is a joke!

I'm serious when I say, every IDE drive I have ever seen, used, installed, replaced has not come close to the performance, reliability of a decent SCSI drive.

My drives come directly from the reliability and testing department of Quantum (Quaxtor), and I have contacts within those departments.

I'm not joking when I say I have a lot of experience with both types of drives.. that's an understatement.

The people with similiar experience know this to be true, SCSI outlasts, out performs, and is a better solution than ANY ide based platform.

This is all that I'm saying, it's not religion, it's a fact that proves itself every year under my desk, on my servers, and the computers I have built for friends, families, and businesses.

I don't gamble.

I am a total newbie. :(

Originally posted by Samuel

I am not trying to impress you.


Don't worry, you haven't. Please continue to use whatever meets your needs best. No need to generalize or proselytize.

Kevin

Kevin, you've mentioned two or three times that you "Should not post in such a "Religious topic"

You're demeaning stance, and obvious commitment towards the thread, and people's opinions are simply to be argumentative.

Do you mind e-mailing me and explaining to me why?

Something here has ticked you, although you aren't being up front about it, at least from my perspecitive.