SATA Disks in a server?

blueboy2001

blueboy2001

blueboy2001

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,898
Are SATA disks in servers really such a bad idea?

I'm speccing a Windows 2008 server to run a couple of relatively small (20Gb each) Oracle databases for a project on a tight budget. I'm looking at a Dell R310.

When I mentioned SATA disks to one of our techies he said only a fool would put anything other than SAS disks in a server.

The disks would be hot swap , probably 2x 500Gb in a RAID mirror and hold the OS and Oracle program files.

The database files will be on a NetApp FAS2050 (we have 2 with replication) and managed using SnapManager for Oracle for backups.

I understand SATA disks are not generally considered to be as reliable, and won't give as good throughput on high load, but I can't see these getting hammered if they've only got the OS and Oracle program files on.

I expect even with SATA disks it will absolutely fly compared to the 7 year old box it's replacing which gives adequate performance in day to day use, but any big database jobs take an age.
 
If its not going to be completely hammered, and doesn't hold anything crucial(even if it did, it wouldn't matter) and you are using enterprise SATA disks, i wouldn't have a care in the world. Just make sure you have backups etc..... I reckon your techie may have been referring to the actual databases, as that would then get a bit slow.

regards
 
A lot of the bad feeling towards SATA vs SAS drives in servers goes back to IDE vs SCSI. There's only really issue if you're looking at lots of drives and/or hammering them for performance.
 
Our NetApp array has a full compliment of SATA disks, and there are no issues at all. Its scaled for upto 2000 users, the disks are not the issue, its all down to the controller.
 
SATA disks have reached the quality and speed of SAS disks now. rpm does not necessarily mean better IOPS. We use sata disks for backup medium at one site and sata disks in our qnap at another. If you can afford it then you might as well go with SAS because most servers operate better with it.

For a database I would recommend solid state especially if its one server. But trying to sell solid state to anyone who does not follow latest technology (like your super smart colleague who thinks SATA is for fools) is near impossible.

SAS 2 runs at 6gbps but SAS one runs at 3gbps i believe. So if you get a sata controller with 6gbps and some 6gbps sata disks that will be better than 10k sas v1 disks. But try convincing some degree comp sci guys that one lol.

http://www.8088.net/images/IOps/IOps_mean_comparison_EN.gif
 
Last edited:
I'd really hate to work anywhere you have been Groen if they were that bad to give you that huge huge chip on your shoulder about anyone who has an education working in the industry!

If the current old disks/box solution is providing adequate performance then you probably won't need to go overboard (I don't think anyone would argue with or need solid state 'selling' to them if it's performance you're after), but maybe allow for some increased future capacity performance wise.
 
Last edited:
groen said:
SATA disks have reached the quality and speed of SAS disks now. rpm does not necessarily mean better IOPS.

<snip>

http://www.8088.net/images/IOps/IOps_mean_comparison_EN.gif
Click to expand...

The chart you link to shows faster disks support more IOPS :confused:

I've just picked the Seagate Constellation ES.2 2TB drive (SAS : ST32000645SS ; SATA ST32000645NS) to compare. The SAS version is £5 more, so I don't see cost being a major influence.
 
SATA drives used to be a lot cheaper. SAS is a lot more expensive than sata. 2tb 6gbps sas can be as expensive as £400 for 2tb. Is that not just an over priced SATA and a cheap SAS ?

HP 652757-B21 £492.73
Seagate ST2000DM001

Yea i think I was wrong with what I said, it does appear the more rpm = more IOPS.
 
I should have said cost shouldn't be an influence on OEM drives ie for populating a NAS.

I've posted about the crazy prices tier 1 vendors charge for large capacity drives here before. HP further take the proverbial by only giving you a 1 warranty on nearline or midline SAS/SATA (if you don't buy an extra Care Pack), yet Seagate give you 3 years. I appreciate HP might qualify the drives, customise the firmware and supply the hot-swap caddy (widely available on The Bay for £10 or so), but a £200 premium per drive (HP vs Seagate OEM)? Hmmm!
 
Chris5: I thought the disks inherited the servers support cover? If you have all the data on the SAN I'd be fine using RAID SATA just for minimal data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom