scsi VS sata

[Cain]

Back in the day when I built my last game server, SCSI drives used a fraction of the server's CPU, vs any flavor of IDE.

Now that we have SATA Drives, are they as easy on server CPU as SCSI drives are, particularly when the drive is really churining to load very large files ???

[Trooper110]

scsi is still faster than sata is, not sure by how much and what kind of performance we're talking about here though.

[CarbonFire]

Don't get SCSI or SATA. Go for Serial Attached SCSI (SAS). Same speed as SCSI (or better), plus you can plug standard SATA drives into the controller if need be.

SAS is basically going to be the new standard for server storage, but it will also be the most expensive. SCSI/SAS drives still go for a little over double the price per gigabyte than SATA drives. If you can't swing SAS, at least stick with SCSI. The lower latency and access times alone are worth the price of admission for servers

[darth_nevus]

SAS already is the new standard, and most enterprise solutions use it due to the small overhead.

[mapes]

Hmmm I'll ask around at work seeing as I work in at a storage vendor. I thought Fibre Channel was the bomb!

[paceman]

Hmmm I'll ask around at work seeing as I work in at a storage vendor. I thought Fibre Channel was the bomb!

Fiber Channel is just a protocol to move the data over fiber. You still have to have drives at the other end, typically scsi or sata attached to the FCP (Fiber Channel Protocol) controller.

But you're right that devices fiber attached are faster (typically) than connected via wire.

[mapes]

Hmmm I'll ask around at work seeing as I work in at a storage vendor. I thought Fibre Channel was the bomb!

Fiber Channel is just a protocol to move the data over fiber. You still have to have drives at the other end, typically scsi or sata attached to the FCP (Fiber Channel Protocol) controller.

But you're right that devices fiber attached are faster (typically) than connected via wire.

I thought they're was some error correction going on too?