17 Oct 03 15:43
You can get faster disks with SCSI and FC interfaces then with IDE interface.
SCSI and FC disks are more stable then IDE disks due to the much better cntl on SCSI and FC disks. They can detect and correct a lot more errors then IDE.
The way the cntl can handle commands on SCSI and FC is also a lot different then on IDE. Basicly that you can queue a lot of commands to a SCSI and FC drive makes it a lot more effective in a loaded env.
When we talk about bus speed it's realy numbers you can't compare and you also can't use it for anything in real life. Most often it's burst rate speeds and even in a lab. Has nothing to do with real life.
A 100 MB/s FC connection will always out-perform any IDE connection in any "real life" test.
In "real life" you don't need burst speed for anything.
I need a disksystem where I can pull 300 MB/s over 3 hours. I don't give a shit if I can pull 10 times that but only for 1/2 of a second.
When we talk about a disksystem today I would not look into any system that is based on SCSI on the inside, only FC.
If you look at BladeStore (as a IDE solution) you get what you pay for. Low cost comes at the price of lower performance and stability. But as always it's not a goal in itself to get high performance or low cost. The goal is to get the right solution at the right price to do the job you need done.
At the moment I am talking to my key accountmanager from StorageTek about a D280 solution. I haven't even looked into BladeStore, only V2X2. But we will go for the D280 and not V2X2, but only because Windows support on V2X2 is too bad.
So I hope to get a new D280 before December (if we find the right price)