Is Serial ATA SATA ready for production?

[snappahd]

I am planning on creating a Serial ATA NAS box used for intermediate backups, software distribution and some other somewhat important data sets. (My very imporatnat data will still go to tape as well).

In researching controllers and drives, I noticed that some drives simply have a converter from Parallel ATA to Serial ATA and some drives look to be designed from the ground up to be Serial ATA.

I was wondering if there it's me, or is the Serial ATA field still getting it's legs, or if it is indeed ready for prime time?

This will be a production application, and I don't want to deal with too many idiosyncracies or problems, but am prepared for a possible drive failure down the road, as I will be deploying them in RAID 5 with a hot spare.

Any comments, or experiences you can share?

Thanks.

 

[sharkeeper]

If reliability is of concern, why not choose a proven technology like SCSI? Make no mistake about it! SCSI works!

-DAK-

 

[Muck]

SATA is still not all it's cracked up to be. Still getting those legs. Right now, SATA drives are just PATA drives with a serial connection. There's no speed increase at this point in time.

I agree with shuttle......SCSI is proven, reliable, fast, and it works. More of a server technology.

 

[Jeff7181]

Yeah, I definately wouldn't consider SATA for a backup solution. If you're looking for speed or reliability, go with SCSI... if you want it cheap, go with regular PATA drives.

 

[bjc112]

SATA is still not all it's cracked up to be. Still getting those legs. Right now, SATA drives are just PATA drives with a serial connection. There's no speed increase at this point in time.

Unless you get a 36 GB 10000 RPM Raptor!

🙂

 

[EeyoreX]

Unless you get a 36 GB 10000 RPM Raptor!

This would be an expensive backup solution since 36GB is not a lot of space he would need several of these at least.

I agree with the above SCSI recommendations. If this data is important, SCSI is fast, reliable and proven. SATA works in my experience, but there is no real benefit at this time other than the nice slim cables. Perhaps later on, when there is an easy method for hot-swapping and more native SATA drives, then I would consider SATA for more critical apps.

\Dan

 

[lameaway]

I'm gonna go against the flow here, even with my lack of experience in the server arena, and say yes. I would recommend SATA over PATA any day if costs were equivalent, especially if you're sinking a lot of money into a RAID contoller that you don't want to have to upgrade any time soon. Even though its new-fangled, the standard is proven not to mangle data, and the thin cables are actually really nice when you have several drives in the case. Production of PATA stuff is going to cease in the fairly near future, and I think you'd be happier having an SATA controller a few years down the line.

I say that if it works, it works, whether its pitched as a server technology or not. And whether the drive is just PATA with a converter is really irrelevant - all that really matters is the interface between the drive and controller. The drive could go PATA->SCSI->FireWire->Gigabit Ethernet->SATA for all I care, as long as the intermediate interfaces dont cause a bottleneck. Which ATA133 doesn't, at this point.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

Unless you get a 36 GB 10000 RPM Raptor!

This would be an expensive backup solution since 36GB is not a lot of space he would need several of these at least.

I agree with the above SCSI recommendations. If this data is important, SCSI is fast, reliable and proven. SATA works in my experience, but there is no real benefit at this time other than the nice slim cables. Perhaps later on, when there is an easy method for hot-swapping and more native SATA drives, then I would consider SATA for more critical apps.

\Dan

Well The SCSI controller card along with the disk's are going to set him back about 300-400...

He could have a few Raptors in a RAID.

 

[EeyoreX]

Well The SCSI controller card along with the disk's are going to set him back about 300-400...

He could have a few Raptors in a RAID.

Actually, closer to $500-$600.

Doing a PriceWatch search I found:

Western Digital Raptor 36GB: $134.99 x 3 (minimum for RAID 5) = 404.95
Maxtor ATLAS 73GB: $153.00 x 3 (minimum for RAID 5) = 459.00

Then add in for contoller cards and the spare drives.

I did not look at ResellerRatings to determine the best place to buy, I only looked for straight low-price to low-price comparison. Before factoring in controllers (he would have to purchase an additional controller for SATA RAID as well, many motherboards currently have support for two SATA drives, and IIRC few with 4, I have no idea if any onboard SATA controllers support RAID 5). Factoring that in, I would say SCSI is the less expensive option over all, more capacity for about the same price. With data backup you want capacity as well as speed. Both the Raptor and the Atlas are 10k rpm drives with the Maxtor offering about twice the capacity for only an additional $20.00 per drive. If it were me, I would go SCSI at this time, as I said before. SATA, IMO, is just not ready yet, in terms of price, capacity, and age. (I rarely buy a first gen product, I rather wait until the initial bugs/problems are resolved). SCSI is mature, proven technology, and can be had at comparable costs to the Raptor solution.

\Dan

 

[Muck]

Also to note.......Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) is on the way (not now, but likely in 2004). So SCSI will remain on top. It's supposed to bring prices down as well.