[nycbug-talk] New Server - IDE or SATA RAID?, 6.x or 7.x? (fwd)

[George Rosamond]

Okan Demirmen wrote:
> On Tue 2008.04.01 at 16:01 -0400, George Rosamond wrote:
>> Matt Juszczak wrote:
>>> Looking to launch a new server here shortly.  I've had bad experience with SATA 
>>> and FreeBSD in the past - primarily with some errors in dmesg that only seemed 
>>> resolved when I swapped in a SATA raid controller (even though these were 
>>> individual drives and not raid!).
>>  From which controller to which?  What types of errors?
>>
>>> Of course, this setup would be RAID 1 - but I'm wondering what the best way to 
>>> go would be - SATA or IDE.
>>>
>> Definitely 'no' on IDE. . . SATA without question.
>>
>> I've used a lot more IDE RAID than I'd like to admit, since I end up 
>> salvaging hardware on occasions.
>>
>>> What are all of your experiences?
>>>
>> Depends on the manufacturer. . .
>>
>> Have used 3ware, highpoint, lsi, pseudo mb raids. . .  end up using 
>> what's around as much as what I want to buy.
>>
>> Look at the management tools available in /usr/ports/sysutils for the 
>> card. . .
>>
>> But LSI is probably the best bet (mea culpa, nako :). . . 
>> sysutils/amrstat is pretty nice.
> 
> i suppose by poking me, you're expecting a response?  :) well, i use a
> different OS and therefore have a set of choices based on raid
> management tools that are part of my OS of choice, and ports; i go on
> that information first...but we are not talking about my OS of choice.
> 

Poking at myself. . .

> back to the OP...  why IDE?  why SATA?  use SCSI or SAS if you have real
> needs.  "launching a server" describes no requirements for one to help
> decide the technology recommended or deployed.  help us help you...

To go with SCSI or SAS over SATA or IDE should have gone without saying. 
. . but ditto to that.

But when it comes to cost, SATA ends up being a choice over SCSI/SAS. . .

George