SATA vs SCSI for a server

[ruthlesset]

I am working for a small company. We currently have 10 desktops and need a server.

I am currently putting together a server from DELL with Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz processors, 1GB RAM. The main problem is deciding whether to go for a SATA or SCSI drive. I want 2 drives with raid 1 config.

The server will be used mostly as a webserver and a file server. The Databases's we have are MS Access DB.

The SATA drives will be 2x160GB SATA, 7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache™. The controller will be the motherboard builtin controller

The SCSI drives would be 2x73GB Ultra 320 SCSI, 1 inch (10,000 rpm). The controller would be the U320 SCSI Controller Card .

Going for SCSI would cost us $449 extra. The downside is also the 73GB space.

Considering the performance and cost which drives would you recommend: SCSI OR SATA.

The OS is going to be win xp prof

 

[Elbatrop1]

What if you got 3 SATA HDDs instead of 2 and ran them in RAID-5?

 

[DEATH-INCARNATE]

Remeber that its the access time of the harddrive that is the real speed. (access time = seek time + latency), and SCSI is faster than SATA. so if speed is all important go for SCSI other wise if you dont want to spend the extra on SCSI for more speed go for SATA. You should be able to find SCSI harddrives that go far above 73GB my friend got a 250GB SCSI drive. +$449 is pretty expensive for a harddrive . where i buy my components i can get a 400GB SATA drive for R2000 thats about $333.33. I rate need to for the largest one as a server needs alot of space.

 

[ruthlesset]

thanks for the feedback.

reliability is really important and that's why I went for RAID 1.

I also heard that SCSI drives lasts longer. Is it true?

 

[ShoobieRat]

SCSI costs more, requires a SCSI controller, they're noisier and run hotter. Plus, SATA's are easier to install and maintain inside the box than SCSI, and SATA's are hot-swapable, so if you have a problem you can just yank it out and slop in a new one. They don't suffer from problems due to rapid restarts and disconnections, either.

Go with SATA's over SCSI. I would not get anything larger than a 200GB SATA, to maintain manageability, heat, and cost and speed. Four 200GB SATA's will be cheap and you'll have a better time with them.

 

[Elbatrop1]

thanks for the feedback.

reliability is really important and that's why I went for RAID 1.

I also heard that SCSI drives lasts longer. Is it true?

You make up a bunch of speed with RAID-5 but still get redundancy. Have a look here to check out each kind of RAID:
http://www.acnc.com/raid.html

 

[ruthlesset]

RAID 5:

Disk failure has a medium impact on throughput

Difficult to rebuild in the event of a disk failure (as compared to RAID level 1)

For us all the data is important to recover


Also DELL offer RAID5 with SCSI only

I am going for "74GB SATA, 10K RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache™" which should have better performance than the 7500 RPM drive. Is it better?

 

[ShoobieRat]

The speed and cache are better, but why a 74GB? If this is a server, how much space do you need?

 

[ruthlesset]

Actually this should be enough for us. We have 2 external backup drives.

Now i need a better backup solution.

Our servers uses about 25GB disk space

 

[HAVOC]

I built a server for a small graphics design company. (A friend of mine owns it.) They have a total of 6 PC's.

Dual 3.2 XEONS @ 533MHz FSB
I used (4) 200gig Seagate Barracude SATA 7200.8 rpm w/NCQ
I configured them in a RAID 5. You always hear that RAID 5 is slower but safer. The performance they have with this server is outstanding.
Of course, it helps because i built it.