Re: SCSI or SATA by David
David
Sat Jul 16 02:01:03 CDT 2005
Is there any noticeable difference in speed between the WDC 10,000 RPM and
the 7,200RPM SATA Drives as the lower speed drives can have a larger
capacity.
--
Regards
David Hellewell
"Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]" <kweilbacMVP@gte.net> wrote in message
news:uUJ9c%23ZiFHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> wdc
>
> --
> Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
> "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"
>
>
> "Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]" <mwport@no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u$MTwYZiFHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Are you using WDC Raptor drives or standard 7200 rpm SATA drives?
>>
>> --
>> Merv Porter [SBS MVP]
>> ===================================
>> "Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]" <kweilbacMVP@gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:%235$3zJZiFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>I installed a Dell server with SATA drive last month, and another one
>>>coming up next week. I will keep you posted.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
>>> "The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@NOSPAM.frontiernet.net> wrote in
>>> message news:e%23MnDxUiFHA.1464@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> It'll be interesting to see about the durability of the SATA drives. I
>>>> had a Dell guy tell me that SCSI drives are a lot more robust, but he
>>>> had not had any SATA drives fail either. With the number of SCSI
>>>> drives I've replaced in the last year, I'm not sure I see how SATA
>>>> could be worse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]" <javier_gomez@REMOVE.THIS.engineer.com> wrote
>>>> in message news:OPFGWeUiFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I concurr with John... until a while ago I used SCSI on all my servers,
>>>>>but the last couple of servers have been using SATA and its has been
>>>>>incredibly fast. I know that SATA are supposed to be slower than SCSI,
>>>>>but I can't honestly notice the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Javier [SBS MVP]
>>>>> www.msmvps.com/javier
>>>>> << SBS ROCKS!!! >>
>>>>>
>>>>> "David Hellewell" <nospam@bigbwana.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4eGBe.72$FY.1604@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>>>>>> Thanks for your fast reply John, I meant Raid 1, slip of the finger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> David Hellewell
>>>>>> "John Oliver, Jr. [MVP]" <jcoliverjr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OHAlByOiFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>I have a few clients running SATA with good results in performance.
>>>>>>>I would also suggest running at least RAID 1 as RAID 0 provides no
>>>>>>>fault tolerance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> John Oliver, Jr.
>>>>>>> MCSE, MCT, CCNA, Exchange MVP
>>>>>>> Microsoft Certified Partner
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "David Hellewell" <nospam@bigbwana.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2UDBe.30$FY.952@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> I am looking at replacing the SBS 2000 Server with SBS 2003. The
>>>>>>>> existing Server has SCSI drives and need your advise on the new
>>>>>>>> server.
>>>>>>>> As SATA drives are cheaper than SCSI has anyone used SATA in
>>>>>>>> hardware Raid 0 and if so hows the performance vs SCSI?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> David Hellewell
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>