ngkatsaras
IS-IT--Management
This seems like a great deal to me!
As the next step in the evolution of ATA hard drives, SATA is directed towards customers requiring the best price advantage for entry level servers and bulk storage deployments in non-mission critical environments.
I wonder why they say "non-mission critial environments"?
Are these drives really so unreliable? Isn't that why I'm mirroring and doing RAID, for the redundancy? Isn't that why I have 3 years of hardware warranty?
HP tries to downplay the performance of these 7.2k SATA drives, saying they have "only" 1.5gbps throughput.
I really wonder, if I buy (2) 80 GB SATA drives, mirroed for the OS, and (3) 160 GB SATA drives with the 6-port SATA controller and do hardware RAID 5, I bet that server will perform quite well. I'm replacing a 3 year old ML350 G1, 1Ghz, with (5) 72 GB U320 10k drives. For the new server, I would get the 3Ghz Xeon. My question is, how does the throughput compare between the proposed new server versus my existing server?
We are currently running SBS 2000 on our existing server, but our SQL database (40gb) and Exchange (15gb) servers have grown so large that things have slowed down tremendously, even though we have 1.5gb of RAM. So what I need to do is buy two new servers so that I can move everything from my existing server out to the new servers. Of course, I need to do this as cost efficiently as possible and I think I'm going to go with the SATA drives unless I get some really bad feedback against SATA... I hope not!
If anybody has SATA Raid, please let me know how well you like it and whether you have had any issues, also I would like to know if you have SATA and it's working fine.
Many thanks in advance!
As the next step in the evolution of ATA hard drives, SATA is directed towards customers requiring the best price advantage for entry level servers and bulk storage deployments in non-mission critical environments.
I wonder why they say "non-mission critial environments"?
Are these drives really so unreliable? Isn't that why I'm mirroring and doing RAID, for the redundancy? Isn't that why I have 3 years of hardware warranty?
HP tries to downplay the performance of these 7.2k SATA drives, saying they have "only" 1.5gbps throughput.
I really wonder, if I buy (2) 80 GB SATA drives, mirroed for the OS, and (3) 160 GB SATA drives with the 6-port SATA controller and do hardware RAID 5, I bet that server will perform quite well. I'm replacing a 3 year old ML350 G1, 1Ghz, with (5) 72 GB U320 10k drives. For the new server, I would get the 3Ghz Xeon. My question is, how does the throughput compare between the proposed new server versus my existing server?
We are currently running SBS 2000 on our existing server, but our SQL database (40gb) and Exchange (15gb) servers have grown so large that things have slowed down tremendously, even though we have 1.5gb of RAM. So what I need to do is buy two new servers so that I can move everything from my existing server out to the new servers. Of course, I need to do this as cost efficiently as possible and I think I'm going to go with the SATA drives unless I get some really bad feedback against SATA... I hope not!
If anybody has SATA Raid, please let me know how well you like it and whether you have had any issues, also I would like to know if you have SATA and it's working fine.
Many thanks in advance!