Hard Drive question - Might be a dumb question but...
-
I'm trying to pick out a HDD to be used with Linux (Fedora Core 6). I've ruled out SATA because it doesn't reach the specs I need, and I'm trying to choose between SAS and SCSI. I'm leaning more towards SAS because SCSI is on its way out. However, SCSI is more reliable because it has been around much longer. My main question is if I go with SAS and decide to upgrade to a better SAS driver in the future, will I need to install a new driver? Otherwise, I might as well just go with SCSI for now because I'll have to install more stuff anyway. If anyone has more information than what I've come up with or can answer my question, please help!
-
I'm trying to pick out a HDD to be used with Linux (Fedora Core 6). I've ruled out SATA because it doesn't reach the specs I need, and I'm trying to choose between SAS and SCSI. I'm leaning more towards SAS because SCSI is on its way out. However, SCSI is more reliable because it has been around much longer. My main question is if I go with SAS and decide to upgrade to a better SAS driver in the future, will I need to install a new driver? Otherwise, I might as well just go with SCSI for now because I'll have to install more stuff anyway. If anyone has more information than what I've come up with or can answer my question, please help!
SAS is the current SCSI implementation. AFAIK the only differences between the old parallel and new serial interfaces are at the drive/controller chip level with identical interfaces looking towards the OS.
jswarts wrote:
My main question is if I go with SAS and decide to upgrade to a better SAS driver in the future, will I need to install a new driver?
This doesn't make sense as written. Is one of the two "driver"'s here supposed to be a "drive"? The OS driver is from the controller company and completely independent of the diskdrive. You can upgrade the OS driver or add new drives without touching the other.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
SAS is the current SCSI implementation. AFAIK the only differences between the old parallel and new serial interfaces are at the drive/controller chip level with identical interfaces looking towards the OS.
jswarts wrote:
My main question is if I go with SAS and decide to upgrade to a better SAS driver in the future, will I need to install a new driver?
This doesn't make sense as written. Is one of the two "driver"'s here supposed to be a "drive"? The OS driver is from the controller company and completely independent of the diskdrive. You can upgrade the OS driver or add new drives without touching the other.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Oops. Yeah, I meant, "If I go with SAS and decide to upgrade to a better SAS drive in the future, will I need to install a new driver?" I am going to be running Fedora Core 6 and wasn't sure how compatible/reliable/supported (I'm not sure which word makes the most sense) SAS would be. My department had issues with SAS on Linux in the past, which is why I am doing this research. I don’t have the details of their problems, but I wanted to find out if this was common for SAS and Linux, or if it used to be a common problem and is now fixed. Right now, the research I have done leads me to believe that as far as performance, SAS isn’t really all that much better than SCSI right now. Buying SAS over SCSI doesn’t seem like it would be a huge improvement. Am I being misled here?
-
Oops. Yeah, I meant, "If I go with SAS and decide to upgrade to a better SAS drive in the future, will I need to install a new driver?" I am going to be running Fedora Core 6 and wasn't sure how compatible/reliable/supported (I'm not sure which word makes the most sense) SAS would be. My department had issues with SAS on Linux in the past, which is why I am doing this research. I don’t have the details of their problems, but I wanted to find out if this was common for SAS and Linux, or if it used to be a common problem and is now fixed. Right now, the research I have done leads me to believe that as far as performance, SAS isn’t really all that much better than SCSI right now. Buying SAS over SCSI doesn’t seem like it would be a huge improvement. Am I being misled here?
for linux stability issues you'd need to post to a linux forum. This is justa WAG, but my suspicion is that just like with IDE drives you'd only see a performance gain for burst mode IO with sustained transfers being limited to the mechanical speed of the drive components, scsi drives have higher sustained rates but IIRC they've also had higher bandwidth levels to match. IF the SAS drives have sufficiently higher platter densities than the ultra320's at equal RPMs you'd see a gain there but it wouldn't be bus related.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
for linux stability issues you'd need to post to a linux forum. This is justa WAG, but my suspicion is that just like with IDE drives you'd only see a performance gain for burst mode IO with sustained transfers being limited to the mechanical speed of the drive components, scsi drives have higher sustained rates but IIRC they've also had higher bandwidth levels to match. IF the SAS drives have sufficiently higher platter densities than the ultra320's at equal RPMs you'd see a gain there but it wouldn't be bus related.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
I'm trying to pick out a HDD to be used with Linux (Fedora Core 6). I've ruled out SATA because it doesn't reach the specs I need, and I'm trying to choose between SAS and SCSI. I'm leaning more towards SAS because SCSI is on its way out. However, SCSI is more reliable because it has been around much longer. My main question is if I go with SAS and decide to upgrade to a better SAS driver in the future, will I need to install a new driver? Otherwise, I might as well just go with SCSI for now because I'll have to install more stuff anyway. If anyone has more information than what I've come up with or can answer my question, please help!
jswarts wrote:
I'm trying to pick out a HDD to be used with Linux (Fedora Core 6).
The best place for this question would be either FedoraForum[^] or the Fedora mailing list[^]. Anyway SAS is SCSI (SCSI over Serial) and Linux doesn't really care which type of physical wire connects the host adapter to the drive. Just pick a host adapter that has driver support in the "vanilla" kernel and everything should be OK.