Sas or SaTa hdd in servers

[ictgoodpractice]

Are people still putting SATA spinning rust in servers or is SAS lots better even though more.

 

I have ssd running the is system. It is for user files mainly.

 

Thanks if you can help me

[XiJ]

For primary we’re using SATA (in a RAID1 usually) with a full onsite backup and offsite critical data backup.

 

We also use SSD for boot and VM storage for performance. Spinning rust for large data storage

[Griff]

I upgraded all my servers to SSD drives in the summer not sure if its overkill but its all very quick

[Meldrew]

We've found that the price difference for SAS vs SATA has narrowed quite considerably, so we're only buying SAS for servers now.

[Norphy]

Are people still putting SATA spinning rust in servers or is SAS lots better even though more.

 

I have ssd running the is system. It is for user files mainly.

 

Thanks if you can help me

 

That's not really a question that can be answered with the information you've put there. It would depend entirely on the role of the server.

 

For example, for a backup server where the speed of the disks is less important than raw capacity, I'd be happy to put in large SATA drives. For a busy database server, I'd want SAS drives or even NVMe. It's one of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions.

[ictgoodpractice]

I did mention it was for storing user files, so hopefully that gives you an idea.

[localzuk]

SSD all through these days. All SATA SSD's in our QNAP arrays (Samsung PM863 2TB drives), then boot drives are SAS SSDs on the VM hosts (whatever Dell provides when you choose SSDs).

[ictgoodpractice]

Don't have that budget in a primary school

[localzuk]

Don't have that budget in a primary school

What sort of data volume are you looking at?

[altecsole]

Are people still putting SATA spinning rust in servers or is SAS lots better even though more.

 

I have ssd running the is system. It is for user files mainly.

 

Thanks if you can help me

 

SAS drives on a RAID 10.

[ictgoodpractice]

What sort of data volume are you looking at?

 

4TB useable in raid 5

[localzuk]

4TB useable in raid 5

I'd say for that small an amount, RAID 5 is unnecessary - RAID 1 would be plenty (and slightly more reliable due to URE rates, using a 10^14 URE drive, rebuilding a 3 x 2TB RAID array would give you a 73% chance of an array rebuilding without failure). Enterprise tier drives generally have a higher URE rate, so 10^15, and the chance of a rebuild shoots up (in my example above, up to 97% chance).

 

So, I would say if you can't afford the £1500 to get 2 enterprise 4TB SSDs and slap em in RAID 1, I'd suggest either:

 

1. Get 2 x 4TB WD RED drives and put them in RAID 1

2. Get 3 x 2TB enterprise class drives and put them in RAID 5

[mavhc]

You're looking at £100/TB for normal SSDs, and £200/TB for Intel's server SSDs, then add on your RAID overhead.

 

So 5 1TB SSDs in raid 5 would be £500-£1000. Is that very high for you?

[PotNoodleTech]

SAS SSD's in RAID5.

[ictgoodpractice]

You're looking at £100/TB for normal SSDs, and £200/TB for Intel's server SSDs, then add on your RAID overhead.

 

So 5 1TB SSDs in raid 5 would be £500-£1000. Is that very high for you?

 

Yes, like the song money too tight to mention. Would love SSD's. Upgraded all laptops to them and they fly.

[mavhc]

Probably spent >£1000 on the laptop upgrades though.

 

Not sure there's a lot of reason to use SAS these days unless the price is similar.

Edited March 13, 2020 by mavhc