SAS vs SATA in Terms of Bit Rot

[Evan]

That an interesting point, why is there no 15k sata drives, I assume it’s because SATA limits the performance , as in SAS has higher queue depth support etc.

The reason for lower failure rate of 2.5” disks is many, it’s related to physics, inertia, vibration, heat, etc

 

[Terry Kennedy]

That an interesting point, why is there no 15k sata drives, I assume it’s because SATA limits the performance , as in SAS has higher queue depth support etc.

WD VelociRaptor drives were 10K. That's the fastest I've seen in SATA.

Quite a few SATA drives share HDAs with their SAS versions. You generally can't swap logic boards because many of these drives hold some of their firmware on the media instead of flash as a cost-saving measure.

Looking at the drives we get back (we were one of the pioneers of "responsible re-use" - we'll recondition any system we sold and took back in trade and donate it to a charity, or part it out if it isn't useful as a complete system), we don't see a lot of bad drives (we won't re-use a SAS drive with even one grown defect, or a SATA drive with any offline uncorrectable errors) in either SAS or SATA flavors. The VelociRaptor drives probably had the highest percentage of failed drives of any model. We never used the problematic 3TB Seagate drives, though.