SATA for backup Data server?

[acole1]

Currently we have a backup/test server for our data entry program database and are running into hard drive limits.

This backup/test server is designed such that if the primary database server crashes all we have to do is remap an .ini file for our database program, change the name of the backup server to the primary server, and off we go again. The backup server is running out of room though, and if we had to use it, it would fill the hard drives and crash the backup. The data for our database is ~30gb, and with everything else we have a 43gb SCSI almost full (900mb free, and declining).

At first I had thought of SATA as a low price alternative to SCSI for this sever, but I am unaware of anything that would be as reliable, or fast enough to handle the job. The bonus to SATA is that you can purchase a large amount of storage space for a relatively low price; but SCSI is much better for speedy/reliable data transfer.

Right now I am leaning towards 2x 10k 73gb SCSI's, but that would run ~$300. Is there a comparable SATA option that would cost less? Or would the benefits of SCSI outweigh those of SATA for this backup server.

Thanks!

 

[Genx87]

Raptors seem to do pretty good against the SCSI drives. But if you can get 73GB SCSI drives for nearly the same price, I'd go with the SCSI drives.

 

[Matthias99]

Frankly, if you are concerned about uptime, run RAID. SCSI drives will fail eventually, too, they're just statistically slightly better (usually) than the SATA models.

SATA RAID5 will be FAR more reliable than SCSI with no RAID, should perform well, and will probably still cost less.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you had greater capacity demands, and were starting from scratch, SATA would offer significant savings. If all you need is more capacity, then your existing scsi (raid?) controllers and the rest of the hardware give you a headstart in that direction...

SCSI has been the reliability leader in the past, but SATA is gaining ground. The WD RE2 drives have the same duty cycle rating and 5 year warranty as SCSI, with several times the capacity/dollar... Potential savings are quite large when terabytes of storage are desired...

 

[Cerb]

If it is just storage, SATA will do nicely. SCSI offers FAR superior performance is there is a lot of random reading and writing going on to the drive. But if you are just pushing/pulling a backup of the DB, that shouldn't make a bit of difference.

For the money, what goes into SATA's favor is that you would be upgrading to something that you can already use 60% of, with SCSI. You could do a SATA RAID 1 for the same price and have 200GB or more. 120GB or so might be feasable with a real controller card, even at the $300 price.