12/5/2023 0 Comments Sas vs sata![]() Tnx for the heads up guys, i'll look into this stuff once more when i find some time. Not in BIOS, not in raid controller's interface, and linux running SMART software will dish out massive ammounts of error when i try to retrieve any data. I'm not gettin ANY smart information out of those servers. Servers are HP Gen5 but i dont have controller details with me. I may not give you much more more details. Consider, if a SAS drive failed in an array and no spare SAS is available, why not replace the failed drive with a comparable SATA drive while waiting for the delivery of a SAS drive? Even the local (brick & mortar) Best Buy does not stock SAS drives. Nothing special or different is necessary, other than fingers crossed. One would never design such a system, but it is possible, nonetheless. In fact, it is possible to mix SAS and SATA drives on the same controller, in the same RAID array. In a server, the communication signal between a SAS or SATA and their controller is identical, due to the interface (backplane). I was directly responding to a general "reliability" comment, not a protocol comment. Either SATA or SAS would work just fine for this application. Reliability, not speed, is the driving factor in this remote VDI application. In your case: i would use SSDs with m.2 or even PCI-Slotcard-SSDs, these ones are much faster than any SAS or SATA SSD would ever be. Today SAS-III offers 12 GBit/s bandwidth in Dual-Port setup, S-ATA III is 6 GBIt/s - both of course theoretical values. The biggest benefit of SAS is the ability of running a Dual-Port setup either connect two SAS-III to one drive and use a combined bandwidth of 12 GBit/s instead of 6 GBit/s on SATA III or connect one drive on two different SAS controllers. The drive's hardware mostly is identical. That's why screaming fast SSDs still come with SATA connectors. But the reasons that SAS Winchester drives are faster than SATA Winchester drives really doesn't apply or apply much to SSDs. Scott Alan Miller wrote:No, they are not more reliable. SATA drive arrays would fail along with the controller failure. ![]() ![]() This is a seamless operation whereby the storage system is not interrupted as viewed by users / operators. This is passive feedback/reporting, not active like SAS.įurther! as stated earlier, SAS drives can automatically be switched to a different controller on command by the backplane. While newer SATA drives are improved in this regard, the backplane regularly queries or pings the SATA bus in order to obtain feedback from the SATA drives. This is an attempt to increase SATA reliability.Īs stated in my earlier comment, SAS also maintains its condition reporting to the controller, SATA drives do not have this capability, thus SATA disk degradation and pending-failures are not reported. In servers, when using SATA drives, the backplane modifies the signal so that the disk controllers treat the drives like SAS drives. ![]() SCSI (SAS) drives use a higher signal voltage and can reliably transmit data ten times farther than ATA (SATA) (30 ft. SAS drives are SCSI while SATA drives are ATA. SAS drives are indeed more reliable than SATA drives. Keep in mind that the fastest and more reliable SSDs tend to use neither SAS or SATA because they are so much faster than those technologies support. ![]() Whats the big difference between SAS and SATA SSD's? Are SAS drives more reliable and/or faster? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |