Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    4 SATAII with raid6 or 2 SCSI iwth raid 1 ?

    Hi,

    we want to build a server and prevent the io,

    and we hope it has backup feature with raid.


    we have two option to think,

    the first is four SATAII HDD with raid 6,

    and the second is two SCSI HDD(10K)with raid 1,


    to prevent the io problem,

    which plan will be better?


    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Ogden, UT
    Posts
    476
    If you have alot of writes, use raid 10, you will get full redundancy and fast read/write speeds.

    Dan
    Daniel Pautz - WebNX, Inc. dan >< WebNX.com
    WebNX.com Enterprise Hosting Solutions – Southern California (Premium Equinix Based DC), Northern Utah (Large 120k Sq' WebNX ran) and NYC Based Servers
    High end Dedicated Servers at reasonable prices on a Premium network with 9x providers route optimized with the Noction IRP

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by WebNX View Post
    If you have alot of writes, use raid 10, you will get full redundancy and fast read/write speeds.

    Dan
    Hi,WebNX,

    i am sorry,my mistake typing,

    i want to compare fore SATAII with raid 10 vs SCSI with raid 1 or raid 5,

    will they have a lot of performance difference?


    Thanks

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    L.A., CA
    Posts
    3,710
    RAID-10 with SATA2 drives will be faster
    EasyDCIM.com - DataCenter Infrastructure Management - HELLO DEDICATED SERVER & COLO PROVIDERS! - Reach Me: chris@easydcim.com
    Bandwidth Billing | Inventory & Asset Management | Server Control
    Order Forms | Reboots | IPMI Control | IP Management | Reverse&Forward DNS | Rack Management

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by AFerrier View Post
    RAID-10 with SATA2 drives will be faster

    Hi,

    no matter SCSI with raid 1 or 5 ?


    Thanks

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by billmiko View Post
    Hi,

    no matter SCSI with raid 1 or 5 ?


    Thanks
    If you are going to prevent the I/O problem but not sololy to the read/write transfer rate. Then SCSI should always be the first priority but it also depends on how good of your SATA/SCSI controller because this is also important and 10Krpm maybe can't show you the true power of SCSI.

    No matter how fast of SATA is, SCSI is still better under extreme environment. In my personal experiences, hosting who used with SCSI all provides good stability.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    195
    It's rather hard to compare low-end SCSI RAID with high-end SATA RAID, they are not at the parallel level. In this case, I believe that most of the time SATA RAID will perform better but when you are facing a mission critical heavy loading situation and come to the I/O problem, SCSI win hands down.

    It depends by your personal preference, so there is no best answer out there. Some guys just want to have the fastest possible speed. To me, I would rather like a more predictable and stable environment while slower in the normal day works.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by HKPlane View Post
    It's rather hard to compare low-end SCSI RAID with high-end SATA RAID, they are not at the parallel level. In this case, I believe that most of the time SATA RAID will perform better but when you are facing a mission critical heavy loading situation and come to the I/O problem, SCSI win hands down.
    When has SATA performance--no matter the "high end" controller --ever beaten modern U320 SCSI or SAS?

    I need to see this benchmark document to believe it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by serverminds View Post
    When has SATA performance--no matter the "high end" controller --ever beaten modern U320 SCSI or SAS?

    I need to see this benchmark document to believe it.
    Rather than just comparing SATA vs SCSI with an equal number of drives, many people are comparing what they can do for a similar price point.

    Having twice the number of SATA drives as SCSI drives as is the scenario proposed by the OP will usually give the SATA drives the throughput advantage. The SCSI or SAS drives will still probably have lower random seek times.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by serverminds View Post
    When has SATA performance--no matter the "high end" controller --ever beaten modern U320 SCSI or SAS?

    I need to see this benchmark document to believe it.
    Well, I definitely toward to the SCSI too since I use it from SCSI2(like 5 or 10M I don't really remember the old day).

    But you need to read the thread clearly first as I'm not going to repeat it all over again. We are comparing the lowest-end SCSI RAID with SATA RAID6/10.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •