I know our Clariion has shelves with 14x320GB raw storage. It's great low cost storage for things which you don't need the performance of a scsi/fc disk from. We use it for stuff like archiving.
Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:33 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions I've seen the SAN vendors these days include SATA drives. Al Mulnick wrote: > Agreed. That bit of history is exactly what I was thinking as I wrote > that. Those things that today are not enterprise ready, may be > tomorrow. Not sure if the thing has to change or if my perception of > the "enterprise" does, but change is constant ;) > > Like I said, I wouldn't want it today for an enterprise class machine > (large centralized enterprise for clarification, where >1000 people > concurrently rely on it for business critical service). > > -ajm > > >> 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/ > > > > 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/ > 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/ 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/
