Scsi VS Sata for a download server

Hi John and thanks for the response.

Define "frequently" for me. It does change once every week or so but I
guess that's not a factor right?

And is 2GB ram sufficient? We have around a hundred people downloading
50 megs of data sometimes (usually 10-20)
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

justatech2004 wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My company is spending a whole bunch on money on a server just to host
> a very important download. It's not a single file. It's several files
> where users download whatever part they need using our software client.
>
>
> We're getting a Dual xeon 2.8 GHZ server with 2 GB ram and I'm not sure
> what kinda drives to get. 2x73GB Scsi 10K RPM mirrored has been
> recommended by some but they're tougher and much more expensive to get.
> We can easily get 10K RPM Sata drives instead.
>
> I hear they actually perform better in many cases. Would this be the
> case for a download oriented server like ours?
>
> I want to save the company money but if there is any significant
> decrease in performance then I'm definitely obligated to bend over
> backwards and go with the scsi.
>
> Any comments/help would be greatly appreciated!

What you _want_ if this is going to be a heavily utilized server is enough
RAM in the machine for all ongoing operations including the file downloads
to come from the RAM and not the disk. The drives shouldn't be a
performance issue unless the data changes frequently.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

Yes, we're going with raid 5 to mirror the drives and our hosting
company has agreed to offer us a great deal on 2x73GB SCSIs so that
settles the hard drive question since cost was the main prohibitive
factor with SCSI and that's no longer an issue.

BUT the ram question now comes in. We can get the ram up to 4GB but is
that really necessary with this many users? If yes, we'll definitely
spend the money....
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

> justatech2004wrote:
Hi,
>
> My company is spending a whole bunch on money on a server just to
host
> a very important download. It's not a single file. It's several
files
> where users download whatever part they need using our software
client.
>
>
> We're getting a Dual xeon 2.8 GHZ server with 2 GB ram and I'm not
sure
> what kinda drives to get. 2x73GB Scsi 10K RPM mirrored has been
> recommended by some but they're tougher and much more expensive to
get.
> We can easily get 10K RPM Sata drives instead.
>
> I hear they actually perform better in many cases. Would this be
the
> case for a download oriented server like ours?
>
> I want to save the company money but if there is any significant
> decrease in performance then I'm definitely obligated to bend over
> backwards and go with the scsi.
>
> Any comments/help would be greatly appreciated!

I would recommend SATA 2 drives. You must have a system to support
the SATA 2. If not, SATA 1. Yes, in many cases, SATA will out run
SCSI.

As far as RAM goes, if you have as many users as you say, max out the
RAM as far as you can go.

I'm assuming you're going to be using some type of RAID system with
the SATA's.
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

> Hi,
>
> My company is spending a whole bunch on money on a server just to host
> a very important download. It's not a single file. It's several files
> where users download whatever part they need using our software client.
>
>
> We're getting a Dual xeon 2.8 GHZ server with 2 GB ram and I'm not sure
> what kinda drives to get. 2x73GB Scsi 10K RPM mirrored has been
> recommended by some but they're tougher and much more expensive to get.
> We can easily get 10K RPM Sata drives instead.
>
> I hear they actually perform better in many cases. Would this be the
> case for a download oriented server like ours?
>
> I want to save the company money but if there is any significant
> decrease in performance then I'm definitely obligated to bend over
> backwards and go with the scsi.
>
> Any comments/help would be greatly appreciated!

You have to find out:
1. what is the approximate average download file size
2. how much (MB) of data will be downloaded per day
3. how many average concurrent downloads will occur
4. how users are connecting to the server (their slowest network link speed)
5. where server is located (ISP?) and how is it connected to users (speed
wise)
6. what downtime users will agree to tolerate (SLA)
7. do you have to provide redundant/alternate server, in case the first one
is unavailable?
8. do you have this service already in place and asking for an advise on
upgrade?

From what you have already said, I assume that almost any server will
suffice. Unless your users are not on Internet, but on a local LAN, and they
are very sensitive to extra milliseconds of download time.
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

justatech2004 wrote:

> Hi John and thanks for the response.
>
> Define "frequently" for me. It does change once every week or so but I
> guess that's not a factor right?
>
> And is 2GB ram sufficient? We have around a hundred people downloading
> 50 megs of data sometimes (usually 10-20)

Are they all downloading the same 50 meg or will each be downloading a
different 50 meg? If they're all downloading the same data then unless
there's something you're not telling us 2 gig should be sufficient. If
they're all downloading a different 50 meg then that's up to 5 gig of data
alone and it's time to go for a 64-bit machine with a 64-bit OS and jack
the RAM up a bit.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> It's cheaper to spend the extra money now on SCSI than it is to get
> egg on your face when you have to explain why your wasting too many
> hours replacing SATA drives and restoring data. Downtime is a hell
> of a lot more expensive than a pair of SCSI drives.

Agreed with all the rest, but...

Downtime replacing drives?
Hotswap and RAID are not novelties in 2005....

--
Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

Rita you have hit this nail on the head!

Man, usenet is still one of the most useful resources the internet
provides even after all these years. I haven't contributed in years but
I think I'll start again. Only difference from '93 - a lady actually
had the best advice in a tech issue and it's GREAT to see!! Now that
was difficult in '93.

Long live usenet!

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Mike Redrobe wrote:
>
> >> It's cheaper to spend the extra money now on SCSI than it is to get
> >> egg on your face when you have to explain why your wasting too many
> >> hours replacing SATA drives and restoring data. Downtime is a hell
> >> of a lot more expensive than a pair of SCSI drives.
> >
> > Agreed with all the rest, but...
> >
> > Downtime replacing drives?
> > Hotswap and RAID are not novelties in 2005....
>
> Absolutely! Let's see him get a SATA solution working reliably and we'll
> talk hotswap later. The solutions I mention will accommodate a hot spare so
> he won't have any worries. Like I said, build it right the first time and
> you will forget you even have a server since you won't be dicking with
> substandard equipment. Being reminded your server needs attention costs you
> money.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

Ah the infighting. It truly is beautiful to see that nothing ever
changes around here. Thank god for that !

CJT wrote:
> > Rita
> >
> You seem to be saying SATA drives are less reliable than SCSI.
>
> Can you back that up with actual data, or is it just speculation
> and prejudice?
>
> My understanding is that in at least some cases the two use very
> similar mechanisms, and only the interface is different. There's
> no obvious reason (to me) why the SATA interface can't be made as
> reliable as the SCSI interface, but I'll listen to reasons why
> that might not be so.
>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che....RemoveThis@prodigy.net.
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

CJT wrote:
>
> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

<snip>

> > It's cheaper to spend the extra money now on SCSI than it is to get egg on
> > your face when you have to explain why your wasting too many hours
> > replacing
> > SATA drives and restoring data. Downtime is a hell of a lot more
> > expensive than a pair of SCSI drives.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rita
> >
> You seem to be saying SATA drives are less reliable than SCSI.
>
> Can you back that up with actual data, or is it just speculation
> and prejudice?
>
> My understanding is that in at least some cases the two use very
> similar mechanisms, and only the interface is different. There's
> no obvious reason (to me) why the SATA interface can't be made as
> reliable as the SCSI interface, but I'll listen to reasons why
> that might not be so.

I have to say I also believe SCSI is more reliable than SATA.

However, properly cooled, SATA drives (provided you use the decent
brands (brand)) are generally reliable.

Not only that, but what with the recent arrival of decent PCIe drive
controllers (Areca, Broadcom, etc) speed is no longer a deciding factor
in choosing SCSI. Sorry, Rita - I've been a SCSI stickler for many
years, but I am now quite happy to use SATA. What with the hot-swap
capability of these controllers (and now with RAID 6, although I haven't
yet experimented with that) provided you have the requisite cooling and
redundant power supplies, etc, I can no longer see the reason for SCSI.

I recently took the decision to finally remove the SCSI drives from my
main computer and I haven't yet found myself sitting on the edge of my
chair, waiting for the drives to fall over.


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server 

> Rita Ä Berkowitzwrote:
justatech2004 wrote:
> Rita you have hit this nail on the head!
>
> Man, usenet is still one of the most useful resources the internet
> provides even after all these years. I haven't contributed in years
> but I think I'll start again. Only difference from '93 - a lady
> actually had the best advice in a tech issue and it's GREAT to
see!!
> Now that was difficult in '93.
>
> Long live usenet!
>
Good luck and have fun! This is a great group to occasionally pick up
some
useful information if you have time to weed out the trolls that spew
misinformation and block out the infighting between them.





Rita[/quote:f4069752a8]

I'm sorry Rita, I don't agree with you. I've put many such SATA
arrays together and have never had hard drive failures. One went due
to overheating and this out of well over 40.

We're not talking about a Internet server. We're talking a 100 node
lan. That's important to consider when spending other peoples
money.

I don't know if you've been following the news, but SATA 2 has SCSI
scared to death. It's performance numbers, in many cases, blows away
a SCSI array. Especially in the exact environment he speaks of. We
won't even mention the cost savings. What is SCSI, twice to three
times the cost?

I don't know what feud you have going on with another poster, but the
place for that isn't here.
 >> Stay informed about: Scsi VS Sata for a download server