sata vs sas

which is better for me?

i have 6 workgroup computers, dells, & use 1 as a server. mainly accounting stuff, peachtree. last june i bought the latest dell workstation, the first one with sas; got 2 drives as raid 1; dell controller card. worked fine until the computer became antisocial, kept cutting other workstations off.

so while wondering about this problem, i used an 1yr old system as the server; had 2 10k sata drives as raid 1. this system was faster! & worked better,!

now i need a new system, & i wonder for 6 dell workstations, which is faster? sas or sata?
3 answers Last reply
More about sata
  1. Sounds like the first setup was damaged from the start. In any case it doesnt sound like SAS was worth while in your situation anyway. SAS is designed for high demand servers with extremely high IO, which I doubt you are coming anywhere near close to utilizing with only 6 workstations.

    I would simply go with whichever solution is cheaper, which will probably end up being the SATA server.
  2. Serial Attached SCSI is the fastest you can get. There are some more "exotic" SCSI interfaces such as fibre but not that you could really use. The fastest readily available drives are SAS. However, the controller cards start around $800. You could get 4 Raptor X 150s for that... If you have the money though go for it.
  3. OK, thanks everyone. i probably shouldnt have bought the very first dell sas configuration weeks after it came out, i should have given them some time to work the bugs out.

    anyway, looks like for me, sata is about as good as sas.

    i'll have to wait for the hybrid drives to really increase my speed

Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives SAS SATA Workstations Storage