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.
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.