Server - SAS Vs. SCSI

Luke

Luke

Luke

Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2005
Posts
7,069
Location
S. Yorkshire
I've been asked for my input in speccing a server.
The options from HP seem to be either U320 SCSI or 2.5" SAS. The SCSI can come in 15k rpm, but the 2.5" SAS only 10k rpm.

If the SAS drives came in 3.5" we could get 15k and the decision would be made, but they don't.

Does anyone know if the 2.5" SAS at 10k would be significantly slower than U320 SCSI 15k in a RAID 5 configuration?

Cheers
 
You can get 3.5" 15K Seagate Cheetahs with SAS interfaces - 36, 74 & 136Gb sizes. But you're kinda stuck if HP's enclosure only supports 2.5" disks for SAS.

Seagate claims up to 88Mb/s sustained transfer from the 2.5" Savvios and up to 125Mb/s for the 15K Cheetahs so there will be a difference in performance between the two.

How many drives are you planning on putting in the array?
 
Hmm, 5xU320 might saturate the SCSI bus if they're 15Ks so there might not be that much difference in performance between the U320s and the SAS drives.

I'm kind of in the same boat as you are yourself with this - SAS is a no brainer if you can use 3.5" disks. One half of me is saying go SAS becuase it's clearly the future of SCSI whereas the other, speed freak half says go U320.
 
as far as i know the 2.5 sas drives are not meant to be too far out from the 3.5 U320. If i remember correctly its something to do with the smaller platers and the less movement for the needle to travel whether this is true or not is another matter but if im correct hp are going down SAS route so for future proofing it might be worth looknig at sas options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom