[ale] RAID 10 Question

[Scott McBrien]

You want more disks if you're going to be using the machines as ESXi hypervisors.  Still RAID 10, but if you could get 6 or 8 disks, you'll get much better performance for your specific application as VM images tend to be large sequential reads.

-Scott

On Sep 23, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Greg Clifton <gccfof5 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, poorly phrased question on my part. Obviously faster RPM slings more data under the heads faster and yes you can get 10k SATA drives and 15k SAS drives and of course the prices go up as the spindle speed goes up. I failed to state it but was assuming equivalent capacity & same RPM for both interfaces. The main question was, whether there is an advantage of SAS vs SATA  with similar/same spec drives. 
> 
> Customer wants 2TB of storage and to run ESXi 5  with Windows Multipoint w/ 10 clients + Win SBS 2008 + SQL Server + Sharepoint in VMs. So, not a home theater environment, more of a production environment. With this being the case, I suppose the 15k SAS drives would be the better choice if we can fit them into the budget.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Tavarvess Ware <tavarvessware at gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone tried the hybrid drives?
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> From: Dennis Ruzeski
> Sent: 9/23/2011 3:14 PM
> 
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] RAID 10 Question
> 
> Careful with the word faster in this context-- Higher RPM == Faster random seek times.
> 
> SAS drives can be had up to 15k (with a significant price increase).
> 
> --Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Lightner, Jeff <JLightner at water.com> wrote:
> rpm = revolutions per minute rather than RedHat Package Manager in this context.
> 
>  
> 
> In our largest disk array we have SSD, SAS and SATA.   The SAS are 10,000 RPM but the SATA are only 7200 RPM so the former are faster.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Jim Kinney
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 2:57 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] RAID 10 Question
> 
>  
> 
> $(x4 1 TB sata) < $(x1 1TB sas)
> Both are 3Gbps but sas has faster rpm and higher heat tolerance.
> But sata is easier to replace before failure due to cost. Replace every 4 years with a 5 year warranty drive and send it to a desktop.
> 
> On Sep 23, 2011 2:50 PM, "Greg Clifton" <gccfof5 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For a relatively small (2TB capacity) RAID 10 array comprised of 4x1TB hard
> > drives, is there any performance/reliability advantage in using SAS drives
> > vs SATA drives?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > GC
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Athena®, Created for the Cause™
> 
> Making a Difference in the Fight Against Breast Cancer
> 
>  Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
> ----------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information  is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
> ----------------------------------
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20110923/03a805e4/attachment.html