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:d44ad85c8e]

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 has SCSI
scared to death. It's performance numbers, in many cases, blows away
a SCSI array. 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 they
place for that isn't here.

> 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!

See my post, just above this one: