SAS v SATAII

[mofusjtf]

Can anyone give a good comparison between SAS and SATA II. SATA II is noticably cheaper and has comparable speed to SAS. I"m just looking for some more concrete comparisons between the two.

 

[burtsbees]

Well, SAS is a SCSI drive that uses a serial interface, and SATA is an ATA drive that uses a serial interface. The ATA standard drives (including SATA) are unable to process more than one standing request at a time, but scsi has always been able to process multiple requests. There are 10000 rpm sata drives, but scsi has 10 or 15000 rpm drives, and have for a few years now...
The SAS are definitely better.

Burt

 

[jkupski]

Reality does not always match paper specs... SAS and SATA do not have comparable performance in the real world.

 

[mofusjtf]

I've actually experienced comparable performance in the real world. SAS is faster but were talking mere seconds here. Outside of this performance gain on SAS, what are the advantage of using it?

 

[LawnBoy]

Connect a hundred users to that SAS drive and watch it put SATAII to shame...

I don't know what the MTBF is for SAS vs SATAII, but we've seen so many SATA disk failures on desktops I would never put one in a server.

IMHO. YMMV.


"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

 

[technome]

Tweakers.net has some comparisions, in Dutch, benchmarks are English....

http://tweakers.net/benchdb/suite/13

........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[burtsbees]

You hit it on the button, Lawn! At least with SCSI drives, you can update firmware and 50% of the time the drive comes back to life.

Burt

 

[xmsre]

The SAS drive has a noticably higher IOPS capacity than SATA. For a 10K drive assuming 4K random IOs at a 20ms response time, on the order of double.