Newegg(US) - Seagate Barracuda 24TB $250!!

[kapone]

They are the same upto controller board with its interface/protocol is added, the sas one typically uses around 3w more.

That is partly why sas is increasingly dropped for scale deployments by those fortune 500 homelabbers, its a added 45-60w per node along with higher node cost.

Both the direct hardware cost and power cost adds up.

The storage nodes im using in lab now is only available as sata, they were fairly cheap since a homelabber using sata for their main storage replaced about half a mill of them.

What? That's news to me (and I'm pretty well connected to those Fortune 500 labbers you're referring to).

You do realize SAS has many more features compared to SATA, because SATA was lacking in those? e.g. dual headed SAS is almost a given. i.e. you can connect the same drive to two different controllers for redundancy. Try that with SATA?

"added 45-60w per node" - So? If that additional 60w makes me an additional $60M or $60B a year, I don't give a rats ass about the power consumption. That's Fortune 500 labbers for you.

 

[Cruzader]

You do realize SAS has many more features compared to SATA, because SATA was lacking in those? e.g. dual headed SAS is almost a given. i.e. you can connect the same drive to two different controllers for redundancy. Try that with SATA?

im fully aware of what sas offers.
But having multipathing and the ability to interface with multiple controllers is a limited bonus when only using a single controller.

What i realize is that i fully see the sense in why the nodes we buy and resell now are coming out of hyperscalers with configs that are sata only for the spinners.
When that 60w per node cut equals a 15-20% consumption drop and a reduced purchase cost per node, and you gain nothing from having it.
Then it makes sense to cut it.

"added 45-60w per node" - So? If that additional 60w makes me an additional $60M or $60B a year, I don't give a rats ass about the power consumption. That's Fortune 500 labbers for you.

When that additional 60w and cost per node earns you an additional $0 a year, its a cost you dont want.

 

[BackupProphet]

What? That's news to me (and I'm pretty well connected to those Fortune 500 labbers you're referring to).

You do realize SAS has many more features compared to SATA, because SATA was lacking in those? e.g. dual headed SAS is almost a given. i.e. you can connect the same drive to two different controllers for redundancy. Try that with SATA?

"added 45-60w per node" - So? If that additional 60w makes me an additional $60M or $60B a year, I don't give a rats ass about the power consumption. That's Fortune 500 labbers for you.

Most architectures I've seen do not need multipathing as rendundancy is implemented by having HA replicas. Cruzader is right that watt per node is what matters. But it is more than just 60 watt, usually 100-250 watt in savings as the nodes has between 60 and 90 harddrives.

 

[Cruzader]

For a 60-90drive unit its gone be more than 60w for sure, the 2.5-3w per drive alone is far more than that.

Im just mainly used to the typical 1U 12-16lff, the last ones we bought some pallets off were these;

 

[nabsltd]

Its a shame SATA is not cheaper in the open 2nd hand market.

SATA will never be cheaper used, because virtually no computers have SAS controllers, but they all have SATA controllers.

This means all the home labbers will compete with people who want one 20TB drive to put in their desktop to store their games/media/whatever. And, because many of those desktops have very limited space for 3½" hard drives, those uses will want the largest single drive possible. This makes it even worse when you are looking for 8x 24TB drives to fill your array...you are competing with several million people who all want just one of those 24TB drives.

 

[nabsltd]

But for quiet some years now its the same drives that are used for both, there is no seperation before the controller pcb goes on interface its sold with.

The firmware, however, is different, and that can lead to SAS being more reliable. Remember old drive firmware that led to the head unloading every minute or so? That may have been a bug, but it wasn't SAS firmware that had it.

 

[Cruzader]

The firmware, however, is different, and that can lead to SAS being more reliable. Remember old drive firmware that led to the head unloading every minute or so? That may have been a bug, but it wasn't SAS firmware that had it.

Not like there is a shortage of issues for sas firmwares either.

Does not really make sense that one would be more likely to have issues than the other.
Both go threw the same testing.

 

[Whaaat]

Remember old drive firmware that led to the head unloading every minute or so? That may have been a bug

Not a bug but typical behavior of Seagate Exos X12 SATA models - unload to ramp after idling for 2 minutes by default. Maybe it is cool for power saving but is a dumb thing for a casual user who is unaware of EPC and PowerChoice

 

[Culbrelai]

My pair of drives just came in. Currently copying to them at about 210 MB/s max, which is only about 70 MB/s slower than the fastest hard drive I have (Seagate Exos of mine I've seen does 280 MB/s)

It's quite the improvement from the PATA 133 days let me tell you, impressive that mechanical drives can be this fast. Perhaps one day they'll saturate the SATA III bus completely at 550 MB/s or so.

I'll reply back if anything goes amiss, somehow I doubt it though. Like msg said above, these are enterprise rebrands and I doubt they are much different than Exos other than slightly lower speed and lower warranty, which results in cheaper price.

 

[ca3y6]

For a 60-90drive unit its gone be more than 60w for sure, the 2.5-3w per drive alone is far more than that.

Im just mainly used to the typical 1U 12-16lff, the last ones we bought some pallets off were these;
View attachment 43353

What is that server?

 

[Cruzader]

What is that server?

Its a variation of GT86CB5630 that many sellers have now, like this one.
Been buying a bit of that and GT62DB7106 like this recently.

 

[BackupProphet]

That is great server, but need rails. And that gets quite more expensive.

 

[ca3y6]

Has anyone seen something equivalent for 2.5 inch drives, ie high density 1u chassis. I reckon you could fairly easy hold 30 SSDs in that format (three rows of 10).

 

[Cruzader]

Has anyone seen something equivalent for 2.5 inch drives, ie high density 1u chassis. I reckon you could fairly easy hold 30 SSDs in that format (three rows of 10).

ZT systems does a model with three rows of 9.
But i have not seen any dumps of them as scalable, only v3/v4 and they dont appear very often.


The 2 row model is more common, like this one PIO has in stock.

 

[ca3y6]

ZT systems does a model with three rows of 9.
But i have not seen any dumps of them as scalable, only v3/v4 and they dont appear very often.
View attachment 43407

The 2 row model is more common, like this one PIO has in stock.

But it seems that the baskets do not have any connector/backplane themselves. It will be just sata cables going to every drive right? Then I might even remove the baskets and 3d print the number of holders I want.

 

[Cruzader]

But it seems that the baskets do not have any connector/backplane themselves. It will be just sata cables going to every drive right? Then I might even remove the baskets and 3d print the number of holders I want.

Yes they are just wired directly, so you could 3d print new extended rows in the same style for sure.

There are some sff hyves that still pop up now and then on ebay also, i know some have 3d printed new double stacked holders for those.
So they get 28sff fairly neatly in the front there.