LSI 9300-8e 12gbps SAS starting to show

[MiniKnight]

Saw on the Tom's: LSI SAS 9300-8e & HGST Ultrastar SSD800MM: 12 Gb/s SAS, Tested - 12 Gb/ SAS: Welcoming The Next Generation Of Enterprise Storage

I like the idea but not gonna use that just yet. Can't wait for cheaper though.

Anyone know when SATA 4 is coming out?

Better question - why do we have SAS and SATA?

 

[klree]

SAS definitely cost more than SATA. Just like asking why do we have SCSI and IDE 20 years ago.

 

[klree]

And sorry to SATA 4
http://www.sata-io.org/documents/SATA_Express_Article_2012.pdf

 

[Computurd]

Much better with SATA Express!

SAS originally debuted in aircraft. The interface is designed for active/active and allows for uber reliability with failover/etc. SAS has features that scream 'mission-critical'.

 

[MiniKnight]

I get all of that. Here's my two things:

#1 1/2 the engineering by going to a single interface. No need to design, tool, and build SATA and SAS controllers
#2 Intel already is making SAS in their chipsets like the C606

 

[Computurd]

SAS is much more expensive, and sucks more power, to make it a viable solution for consumer applications. This basically creates a tiered structure where customers pay for the amount of 'service' that they require.
Intel is putting SAS onboard motherboards, but that is an extremely limited application that cannot match the features offered by other cards/controllers.

 

[mrkrad]

SATA -> SATA

SAS -> SAS

you don't want sas talking to sata, bad mojo.

It's silly you can buy a 16gb laptop without ECC- bit flip/rot is very real. same with storage, wiring (networking) etc.

 

[Dr_Drache]

SATA -> SATA

SAS -> SAS

you don't want sas talking to sata, bad mojo.

It's silly you can buy a 16gb laptop without ECC- bit flip/rot is very real. same with storage, wiring (networking) etc.

I don't fully understand, SAS/SATA has been hot swappable for YEARS, hell, in some cases SATA is recommended OVER SAS.
so how is it bad mojo when they are pretty much the same thing to a end user? (end user, being an admin/people on this forum)
according to DELL/HP when i was buying servers a few months ago, the message was clear, how many IOPS you need ($$ you have obviouslly) determined
what drive is used, normal data - SATA, critial data SAS, critial data with best IOPS $$ can buy, SSD.

 

[Computurd]

The people who need SAS already know they need SAS. It has specific features for those who need them.

 

[Dr_Drache]

The people who need SAS already know they need SAS. It has specific features for those who need them.

honestly, I'd like to know what features you are speaking, the SCSI pathing? the WWN? the higher command voltages? the scsi error correction system?
with proper enterprise hardware, most of this is non-issue (unless, as stated, you have serious critical data that REQUIRES said features, which is getting less, and less "REQUIRED") , NLS takes care of that, and MOST SAS cards run sata anyway (encapsulated data-streams)
so other than the SMART commands, and sata drives older than the 3gb/s spec, it's really a tossup.

 

[Computurd]

Well, as i said above, those who need SAS know it. Multi-path, failover, wideport, longer cabling, end to end data integrity.
Also, something for you to research. What is the maximum QD for SATA? Is SATA as scalable as SAS? Full duplex? What is the difference between SATA and the much more robust SAS command set? Tagged Command Queuing?
Simply because most SAS cards run SATA isn't a sound reasoning for getting rid of SAS. All the encapsulated SATA in the world isn't going to suddenly create SAS features on a SATA storage device.
Surely the thought has occurred that all of the billions of dollars spent on SAS storage by these multi-billion dollar corporations is for a reason? Do you think the architects at these large datacenters are using SAS 'just because?'.