Right. They do include them. What's the failure rate and why don't you use
them for things like day to day file and print? Is it because EMC lives on
site and is constantly doing the replacement shuffle or is there another
reason, perhaps non-technical?
What I'm getting at is that SATA drives have a place in the world. They
were intended to be a desktop solution (presumably where failures are more
tolerated because they only take out one or two productivity hours to
replace in case of failure.) They are migrating to other applications that
SAN vendors are pushing to drive down the costs of raw storage. Does that
make it ready for enterprise class storage? I think it does if you change
the meaning? I define it as supporting storage for a centrally located
resource that supports greater than 1000 concurrent users. I don't consider
it performance issue directly, but rather a problem with reliability. I
don't think the reliability is there yet. It will be I'm sure.
Does it work well for backup/archive solutions? I think it's well suited for
that purpose because it's AT LEAST as reliable as tape but much faster and
likely cheaper over time per MB. That's a familiar path that SCSI based
systems took as well and I'm sure it'll have similar results long term.
FWIW, I'm not convinced it's the transport but the media being used in those
devices. I don't think anyone bothered to care as much about quality as
they did price/space. When that changes so will my thinking about the
capabilities of SATA in a centrally deployed, user dense environment. Until
then, it's cheap and disposable and can be utilized to support cheap and
disposable (read that as reliability is not important to the task) usage
scenarios. I'll use something a little more reliable until then at a higher
cost.
Risk/Benefit - different for everyone but just because EMC puts it into
their solutions doesn't make it right. Heck, EMC doesn't always do what I
consider to be in my best interest anyway. I can only count any vendor to
do what brings them revenue; after that it's on a case by case basis.
Al
From: "Brian Desmond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
To: <ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:55:32 -0500
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/
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/