Posted by: Tskyers
Not sure if I mentioned this before, but I’m a geek. I like blinking lights and shiny things. I do math and physics for fun. I’d chose a good computer magazine over Maxim. . .well, maybe not THAT much of a geek, but you get the point.
So what’s provoked my geekitude this time? SAS benchmarks!
My friend Karl and I go back and forth about SAS disk benchmarks. I follow him in his quest to get past the 200MBps ceiling on his desktop. I poke fun at his pursuit while secretly hoping he’ll find that right combo to break the 200MBps mark so I can buy it.
Further fueling my mental yoga over disks is the fact that SAS has invaded our server room at work like a plague. A good plague, but a plague all the same. I went to work one day and realized we don’t use SCSI in anything but our older legacy machines. Honestly, I love it, the performance of SAS drives is great, they are small (we use 2.5-inch SAS on IBM blades) and they don’t make as much noise or heat, don’t use as much electricity and have a reasonable capacity.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that I go home (well, sometimes, anyway) and I don’t have SAS at home, I have SATA.
Mind you, my SATA array sits behind an Areca 8-port RAID controller with 128 MB of cache on a PCI-Express based card, so it’s no slouch. But it’s not SAS, not by a long shot.
I now. . .must. . .have it. I neeeeeeeeeeed it. I don’t care what body part it’ll cost me! I want the speed and lightning response I get when I click the start menu or do some data migration chore on a SAS-based machine.
Vendors are now offering SAS cards with no RAID 5 or write cache available for about $150. The drives are about $250, which makes a small array at home not out of the question. (I just have to come up with a compelling argument to submit to the home finance committee. BTW, consider this an official cry for help to come up with an argument that will avoid the dreaded giant red “Denied–resubmit in 90 days” stamp the chair of said home finance committee has in her possession.)
But while trying to come up with this argument, it hit me. Traditional SCSI is dead as a doornail, and I missed the funeral.
In the meantime, if SATA ever slows down in its capacity growth, it had better look out too.
If I’m willing to sacrifice a bit of space for the speed, who else out there is willing to do the same? A decent capacity SATA disk will run you $200; a 150 GB Western Digital Raptor (10k rpm SATA) will run you $220. So why bother? Why not spend the extra $30 and get SAS? The controllers are about the same cost now for quality brands, the cabling and power envelope are roughly the same, acoustics on the 2.5-inch drives are not bad and the thermal footprint is not outrageous.
And there’s a downside to size. How long would it take to rebuild a RAID 5 or 6 array made up of 4 TB drives ? How would I cope if I lost 4 TB of data?
My future holds a 32 GB to 64 GB RAID 1 solid-state disk for my OS, with capacity SAS for the 3 TB that Office 2010 is going to take up. IBM has already released a 16 GB SSD for their blades with the 32 GB models soon to be widely available. Not only that, but you can set them up in RAID 1. (Every time I say “RAID 1 SSD” I have to giggle.)
Can someone give me an irrefrangible (Thanks for the SAT submission! More more!!!) argument why SAS will not someday soon be the SATA of today?