Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    Nearline Sata drive performance

    We have had some old dell 745n that had sata drives in them in the past. These are the only time we have ever used sata. The performance was terrible and we replaced the sata drives more times in over several years and we ever have with sas/scsi drives.

    We are looking to get some new disk backup boxes which we plan to go 600gb sas drives, but might be considering 1tb nearline sata from dell.

    I would like to hear from anyone using nearline sata and get feedback on performance and reliability overall. Also if you are using for backups, how many backup jobs are you able to run at the same time before performance drops?

    thanks in advance

  2. #2
    I've had the opposite experience, I RMA a much larger % of scsi & sas drives then I do sata.

    That said, I have very little experience with the nearline sata, sorry.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    462
    Pody,

    Depends on the backup software you use as to what kind of performance you would receive.

    We've used SATA for backup purposes. With the right controller its plenty fast and able to keep up with our volume with ease.

    Thanks!
    => Admo.net Managed Hosting
    => Managed Hosting Dedicated Servers Colocation
    => Dark Fiber Access to 1102 Grand, Multiple Public Providers
    => Over Sixteen Years of Service

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Our standard backups servers each have 15 SATA drives on Areca RAID6 controllers. They perform very well, and have been extremely reliable.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    388
    We are running a Dell Equallogic SAN with SATA drives and had no problems.
    SAS gives you less latency and more performance on small file reads and writes. If you are running heavy databases then use SAS, if your load is medium to low use SATA.
    I run 30 VMs with a mix of SQL, Web and File servers on our 16 drive SATA box and have no problems with performance.

    For a backup box you'll have no trouble at all with SATA. Remember, the more drives (spindles) you have, the higher the overall performance.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by pody View Post
    We are looking to get some new disk backup boxes which we plan to go 600gb sas drives, but might be considering 1tb nearline sata from dell.

    I would like to hear from anyone using nearline sata and get feedback on performance and reliability overall. Also if you are using for backups, how many backup jobs are you able to run at the same time before performance drops?
    I have used both SAS and SATA in Dell's with PERC 5i and 6i. Never had a problem with any RAID arrays regardless of interface. Have never had to RMA any of the Seagate drives in these systems.

    SATA is fine for server use as long as you're running RAID 5, 6, 10 or 50 with ample spindles; JBOD or RAID 1 are fine for servers with light non-critical loads. The only time I've had to replace SATA with SAS is heavy database or virtualization loads.

Similar Threads

  1. SAS vs SATA II Performance
    By WireNine in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:25 PM
  2. $64/mo -- 2.66 CeleronD / 512 RAM / 80 SATA Drive
    By datarealm in forum Dedicated Hosting Offers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-30-2006, 11:26 PM
  3. Which SATA drive is best?
    By twrs in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-22-2004, 11:12 PM
  4. Anyone Own a SATA Drive yet?
    By atjeu in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-06-2003, 12:28 AM

Posting Permissions

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