How about a SCSI 15k rpm sata drive

[tweakboy]

What is the verdict or do we not have one yet.

:\

 

[ch33zw1z]

SCSI is not interchangeable with SATA. What you're looking for is a SAS drive..

 

[tweakboy]

Oh sorry, yes the cable are old skool thick, never said anything about SATA .

There is a way though.I would be using a SCSI card and the drive,, 15k super faster then SSD's and you get most space for the buck,, gl, Just my thoughts and theory.. thx,

 

[ch33zw1z]

Oh sorry, yes the cable are old skool thick, never said anything about SATA .

There is a way though.I would be using a SCSI card and the drive,, 15k super faster then SSD's and you get most space for the buck,, gl, Just my thoughts and theory.. thx,

Now I'm confused. Your title is: "How about a SCSI 15k rpm sata drive"

Yea, if you use SCSI U320 with 15K RPM drives with the correct RAID configuration then you can achieve very high R/W's, but the price point may not be the best for a home desktop/server type environment.

OTOH, if you combine a SSD as an OS drive and a couple large 7200 drives, then your home desktop/server will fly and you're getting the best bang for your buck by far.

Then there's SAS, google it 🙂

 

[brxndxn]

SCSI is not interchangeable with SATA. What you're looking for is a SAS drive..

How does that make any sense? SAS is not interchangeable with SATA either. SAS is just the newer SCSI technology. SAS stands for 'serial-attached scsi.'

A SAS controller can run a SAS drive or a SATA drive but a SATA controller cannot run a SAS drive.

They're fast, btw.. partly because the drives are at 15krpm, partly because the drives have more of their own processing, and partly because SAS controllers are typically much better than on-board SATA controllers. But, from what I've seen, unless you have a few 15k rpm SAS drives in RAID 0 on an expensive SAS controller, todays' fast SSD drives will beat it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

How does that make any sense? SAS is not interchangeable with SATA either. SAS is just the newer SCSI technology. SAS stands for 'serial-attached scsi.'

A SAS controller can run a SAS drive or a SATA drive but a SATA controller cannot run a SAS drive.

They're fast, btw.. partly because the drives are at 15krpm, partly because the drives have more of their own processing, and partly because SAS controllers are typically much better than on-board SATA controllers. But, from what I've seen, unless you have a few 15k rpm SAS drives in RAID 0 on an expensive SAS controller, todays' fast SSD drives will beat it.

SAS seemed to be what he was looking for, I read the thread title and subject matter and took a stab at it..

I understand they're different command sets with similar physical characteristics. (up until now, recent readings cite greater differences in the future)

TBH, I now have no idea what the OP was even asking...

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I don't' understand your English.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

It'll be loud, hot, and still not approach the seek time of an SSD.

 

[Rubycon]

On one of my machines I found a single SSD to be faster than a 16 drive 15K SAS array. Of course STR of the array was faster (1.8 GB/S)...

So what to do? Replace the SAS 15K drives with SSDs. All of them! 😀

 

[tweakboy]

Thanks all, I read every comment. Sorry to those offended and those not.
Im glad youll be ok 🙂