From: ASB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:13:22 -0500
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended
for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depends on the size of the "enterprise"
SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure.
It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were
considered "not designed for the enterprise"...
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
>
> I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
> It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
> server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are
intended for
> desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
>
> Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to
be cheap
> and replaceable.
>
> Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;)
>
> That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll
try not
> to build too many centrally required applications on that
technology unless
> I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large pools that aren't
> bothered by the loss of several components at a time.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Rob MOIR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> >To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>,<ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
> >
> >I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units
in a
> >Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm
still just as
> >happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they
wanted inside
> >the budget we had.
> >
> >One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go
to use
> >SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to
it is to
> >replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick
> >Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
> >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> >
> ><silly no-hair-color alert>
> >SATA == Desktop drives.
> >
> >They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage.
I see
> >them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of
what I've
> >seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where you can
absorb
> >the continuous loss of hardware and not impact performance and
> >availability.
> > Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that
hsm is
> >called now? ILM? :)
> >
> >If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA
is not
> >likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit longer
if the
> >data is important.
> >
> >
> >For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
> >investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support
agreement, and
> >close access to the highway.
> >
> >-ajm
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> > >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
> > >
> > ><Stupid blonde alert>
> > >
> > >I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but
none in
> > >the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger in
the rack
> > >world?
> > >
> > >I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record
[server and
> > >desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get
knocked off
> > >each time I reach into the case. Those cable connections on the
back of
> > >the SATA drives are a little worrying. I've accidentally bumped
the
> > >connection off my workstation at home twice while adding the
Happauge
> >card
> > >and what not.
> > >
> > >In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up,
if they
> >are
> > >underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of
the SBS
> > >support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
won't
> > >guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to put
that data
> > >on that device?
> > >
> > >So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers
are okay,
> > >but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
> > >
> > >I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower
stuff...lemme
> > >just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rob MOIR wrote:
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al
Mulnick
> > >>>Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
> > >>>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
been made
> > >>>comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with 1GB of
memory each
> > >>>would be more than needed based on those parameters.
> > >>
> > >>I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you
need to
> > >>look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer
recommends.
> > >>If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the
sort of
> > >>24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against
them? Who
> > >>are we to assume we know a product better than the people who
designed
> > >>and built it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other
considerations
> > >>>would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent of course).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my
DCs, even
> > >>onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just don't
believe in
> > >>adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental network
services if I
> > >>can help it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >--
> > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> > >http://www.threatcode.com
> > >
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
