SCSI vs. SATA In a File Server?
turboflux asks: "I'm currently in the process of replacing an aging file server with something more robust. Company-wide, there will be about 100 people who could be using this server, but I don't imagine there being more than 50 concurrent users. Right now, I'm torn between spending alot on SCSI hardware, much like our other servers, or spending less, but getting more space, with SATA II drives. Whatever I decide, the server will be setup with a RAID 1+0 array for the numerous benefits it offers. Does Slashdot have opinions or suggestions on performance, reliability, and stability?"
Have you ever thought about the benefits of RLL?
I don't mean this as a troll, but I was under the impression that USB 1.0 replaced SCSI? Or was that desktop only, and it still has server uses? I mean, I thought USB killed SCSI? Or am I thinking of something different?
Clearly the answer is SCSI - go with what you know, servers are not the best computers to experiment with random equipment.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
USB 1.0 didn't kill SCSI, Steve Ballmer F**KING KILLED SCSI!
Now Ballmer says he is going to F**KING KILL USB.
Man I need a T-Shirt that says that.
"Steve Ballmer says, "I'm going to f**king kill you!"".
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
.. if you do end up with SATA, make sure to get some neon lighting for inside the case.
--
Current setup - 4x Seagate 400GB SATA, NVRAID-0, ThermalTechno 4000 1U Case w/ Ground-FX, 3x Zalmat 80mm SilentKiller Fans (soon)
/walks by backup storage room with high powered magnet. ololo they fired me?!
The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.