RAID: SATA or SCSI?

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by 5Gen_Prelude, Aug 18, 2004.

  1. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    I want to upgrade our homemade server at work and I have to decide whether to go SATA or SCSI. Currently I'm using 1 36 Gig and 1 72 Gig SCSI drive NOT in RAID. I have an additional 72 Gig drive waiting in the wings and a 36 gig that needs repairing. I would be replacing the MB at the same time anyway, so I could easily use the onboard SATA RAID controller. If I don't go that way, I would have to buy a SCSI controller.

    The use is a very large database that is accessed 24/7 on both read and writes, so I was thinking of either RAID 3 or 5, and at the minumum RAID 1.

    SATA seems like a great deal but what about the throughput?
     
  2. crontab

    crontab (uid = 0)

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    23,439
    Likes Received:
    11
    Define large and it's access. How much change in rate is there? Multiple connections into the db doing tons and tons of transactions? Millions transactions per hour? Or are the scheduled batch jobs to run here and there.

    The answer to that should determine where you're going to go SATA or SCSI.

    Seems like the financial aspects are negligible? You're lucky.
     
  3. MaXBoost

    MaXBoost < OG Member :)

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    964
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    www.batalk.com
    SATA desktop
    SCSI server
     
  4. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    The big problem is that it is sharing an Access 2.0 database. Now before you you go :uh:, it's a piece of software that uses it and I cannot change that regardless. The software that uses it is on a workstation and the database is on the server (the program itself is not super stable, thus the split is required). Other workstations use the same database during the day for mostly reads, but a few writes. But the other one is doing read/writes 24/7. The lag right now is because Access 2.0 is so inefficient at reading and writing data.

    Money is always a concern but I can justify it if it's a) fast and b) reliable. Keep in mind, I save in other areas (ie no name brand server).
     
  5. Scoob_13

    Scoob_13 Anything is possible, but the odds are astronomica

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    73,783
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Fort Worth. Hooray cowgirls.
    No offense, but you can get a decent "basic" server for pretty cheap from Dell.

    Now, as for your original question, are you aiming for hotswapability for your data drives, raid 1 or 5 operation, or ? How many transactions are you looking at, realistically, per hour from the workstation that will be accessing it 24/7?

    SATA is a great solution for small, low-cost solutions. You'll never max out a SCSI pipe if you're working with an Access 2.0 DB, by the way, so it'd be overkill unless they're planning on updating it any time soon.

    I run a set of 4 Seagate 7200rpm 160GB SATA in a RAID-5 setup using a Promise Fasttrak S150 SX4 with 256mb PC133 - it freaking flies :bigthumb: I use it as both a test bed, server, and backup for my desktop. I needed the space, so I couldn't go for the WD 10krpm drives for more speed.

    Also, I'd suggest getting a dedicated controller for the drives, and if possible a backplane (Adaptec makes a great backplane/controller combo) so that you can hot-swap them.
     
  6. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    With multiple users working on the same db - yes it does bottleneck. That will be fixed to some degree by increasing the LAN bandwidth however (since that is the weakest link right now - there was a huge difference between 10 Mbit and 100 Mbit when I upgraded).

    As for RAID, mostly I want it for redundancy (duh). I've had a few drives go on me, mostly over time so I had time to swap them. Ideally I'd like to be able to pull the drive out and swap it with another without too much headaches, but in reality if I had to shut down the server it's not that big of a deal. Keep in mind, I already have 4 SCSI drives, but no SCSI RAID card.
     
  7. Scoob_13

    Scoob_13 Anything is possible, but the odds are astronomica

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    73,783
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Fort Worth. Hooray cowgirls.
    Eh, go with a SCSI raid card and keep it on a simple mirror.
     
  8. Mikey D

    Mikey D New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Royal Oak, MI
    How big is the DB?

    I see a lot of people saying RAID 5 but if you're looking for the best performance and fault tolerance i'd consider RAID 0+1(10) that way if you lose a drive you won't take a performance hit while you have to rebuild it after it's replaced.

    This may all be over kill though as I saw it was an access DB, i'm thinking in terms of large(>100GB) Oracle or DB2 databases.
     
  9. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    There are several databases involved (>10 GB)
     
  10. Scoob_13

    Scoob_13 Anything is possible, but the odds are astronomica

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    73,783
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Fort Worth. Hooray cowgirls.
    Yeah, SCSI then. On a side note, most people I know don't use Access for a DB that large :o Impossible to change, I know, but hey, good luck with it :mamoru:
     
  11. 5Gen_Prelude

    5Gen_Prelude There might not be an "I" in the word "Team", but

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    Beleive me, there's times that it frustrates the hell out of me, especially when access decides to just take a shit for unknown reasons. But it's still better than copying information and not being live.
     

Share This Page