Re: SATA vs SCSI

[Larry Lowry]

We have been using the controllers built into the 
motherboards.  I know they are not as good as some
dedicated cards but they work well enough for us.
I prefer the nVidia nForce4 Ultra Chipsets.  They 
have a nice raid setup.  We needed a cheap box for
data server but with a lot of tempory disk space.  
A system with the K8N Neo4 motherboard, Athlon
64 3500+, 2gb memory and 5 250gb sata drives 
yields a fast box with 1tb storage. All for under
$1500.  I know this is not an Enterprise DB box
but again everyone has to evaluate their needs,
budget and boss.

Larry




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moulder Glen CONT PBFL" <Glen.Moulder.ctr@stripped>
To: <mysql@stripped>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:30 AM
Subject: FW: SATA vs SCSI



Larry wrote:

My $.02.  As I agree SCSI has had a reputation for being
a more solid enterprise type drive, everyone's mileage varies. 
We have moved to using all SATA drives in our newer servers.  I 
have to admit most of our databases are smaller than what many 
on this list have.  All our db's are  under
500 megs.    My reality is this.  If a SATA drive does fail,
so far only 1 over the last 18 months, it is cheap and easy
to replace.  I have all my setups raided so we have no lost 
data. At the same time I have several Hitachi/IBM SCSI drives...


What controller do you use for RAIDing the SATAs?

Glen





-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:    http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1