Sata .v. Scsi

[michael]

I would like to hear everyones opinion on the various advantages/disadvantages of these two technologies.

I know that sata provides greater storage space per pound but I wonder what extra security/stability is provided by scsi to justify the extra price?

[Host Master]

SCSI is the professional solution if you want to keep your server running relatively trouble free. SATA is just harddrives but SCSI can be set up with RAID so in the event of harddrive failure everything continues running fine while you fix it but with SATA you can be screwed till the techs or sys admin sees the problem locates it and swaps the dead harddrive out.

[michael]

Can you not set up SATA drives in a raid array as well though?

[WebHost Admin]

Personally, I always watch out for SCSI with RAID on servers - SATA only would never give me the same sense of security for keeping the server - and hosted clients - running smoothly.

I don't know if you can set up RAID with SATA, but I can't think of any examples I've seen recently of that combination.

[TWD_Tony]

You can setup SATA drives in a RAID array...

The only real reason why SCSI drives were ever considered the "pro" choice was the speed increase they offered over SATA, but these days SATA technology has caught up with SCSI so there is no real reason to dismiss them as an option.

[michael]

Thanks Tony for clearing that up for me it makes sense now.

[triumph]

I prefer SATA myself.. I think it is the newer technology and I think going foward is going to be the one that offers the best performance in the next generation.

Drive type has nothing to do with RAID. I can set up a raid configuration using IDE drives.

[laarni080]

Simple question, complex answer I guess: is it still best to stick
with SCSI or consider SATA? I've read some positive reviews of the
SATA versus SCSI systems. Cost isn't really the biggest issue
- mainly want the best technology for the next five years. Yeah, I
know - impossible task :-)

You have the best foundation for a great highly reliable system with a lot
of room for expansion. At this point in time there is no reason to go
backwards in technology and reliability by using SATA to save a few pennies.
I'm not sure what drives you are using now, but if you have any
concerns about squeezing out a little more performance you should look at
replacing them with the latest generation drives and
possibly the RAID controller. If you have the need to do any upgrades I
would suggest going U320 with the controller and Cheetah drives

As a general rule, SATA is reserved for systems used for gaming,
overclocking, MP3 servers for your teenagers, and other neon lighted cases
devoted solely for show. For maximum longevity of data retention and worry
free reliability there is no other solution than SCSI. For cheap drives
that are being used in novelty systems were reliability and data retention
is so far down the priority list the only choice would be SATA

[MasterMind]

Thanks for bring back this post and clarify difference between both technologies.

I have been using SCSI for years now but my most recent acqusition came with SATA and after about 10 months I can't figure out still how to setup properly the drivers that seem to be always lost.

Or am I the lost one? it looks like

[saubryn]

I don't like SATA much at the moment - I have no proof other than personal experience, but I'm convinced that SATA drives still have problems - in the past year I've lost four drives to overheating and / or blown controllers. My old IDE drives and SCSI drives are still running just fine.

Maybe I've just had bad luck.

[MasterMind]

What I have noticed is that after being used a PC with SATA it acts like retard from time to time, taking too much time to process something as simple as double clicking on a desktop icon :\

[turbovps]

Sata 2 with 16MB buffer are as good as Scsi the only difference is seek time.

[brian]

I was looking into this again recently when selecting drive type for a new server.

I've got to admit, though SATA has a reputation for having caught up better with SCSI, as a standard configuration SCSI still seems to offer better performance, both in terms of seek times but also in terms of harddrive longevity with SCSI drives apparently lasting longer than STAT before fault.

On a lower end server I'm sure SATA would be fine. But on a quadcore Intel with 4GB RAM, I had to go for SCSI.

[monaghan]

I do tend to agree with you here, for a big server, especially database based, then I'd go for SCSI for raw multi-user performance (combined with a good hardware RAID of course)

For lower end, then SATA would be good enough for most users and a SATA Raid if you want a bit more security.