ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    6gb sas vs 8gb fibre

    IT Discussion
    8
    32
    7.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • travisdh1T
      travisdh1 @Dashrender
      last edited by

      @Dashrender said:

      huh - cool - looks like I might have been thinking about it all wrong.

      Sorry I'm possibly putting some bad info into your thread @bbiAngie at least I'm learning some cool stuff along the way.

      You can take a gander at the low end stuff I know of on the dumbest search terms I've used that actually worked on NewEgg

      bbiAngieB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • bbiAngieB
        bbiAngie @travisdh1
        last edited by bbiAngie

        @travisdh1 What we are looking at cannot be acquired from newegg... 😃

        travisdh1T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • DashrenderD
          Dashrender @Dave.Creamer
          last edited by

          @Dave.Creamer said:

          Just kidding. Like I said, they're limited to the connection speed of the card, the chassis and the drives.

          OK so let's work from there. The RAID controller is the limiting factor - so 6 Gb on SAS or 8 Gb on fibre - Now the question is... are the drives saturating that? If the answer is no, then go with the less expensive option, if the answer is yes, then go with fibre.

          At least that makes sense.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • travisdh1T
            travisdh1 @bbiAngie
            last edited by

            @bbiAngie said:

            @travisdh1 What we are looking at cannot be acquired from newegg... 😃

            I figured. It's the easy example for someone not at all familiar with how these thing connect. Also good for you, most of those don't reach "home lab" level.

            DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DashrenderD
              Dashrender
              last edited by

              @travisdh1 said:

              DAS units normally have a back plane of some sort. So you are really hooking 4 to 8 drives to a single SAS channel. Spinning rust this doesn't matter so much as current SAS/SATA standards are so much faster than the drives can work with data... start dropping SSD into a SAS attached DAS and you could cause yourself a bottleneck.

              As Travis says, You're probably not in a bottleneck situation with upwards of 20 spinning rust drives, but if that's 20 SSD drives, you're maxing that thing out.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DashrenderD
                Dashrender @travisdh1
                last edited by Dashrender

                @travisdh1 said:

                @bbiAngie said:

                @travisdh1 What we are looking at cannot be acquired from newegg... 😃

                I figured. It's the easy example for someone not at all familiar with how these thing connect. Also good for you, most of those don't reach "home lab" level.

                While I did know that there is not a cable from every drive to the controller, typically there is a backplane or two... what I have to admit is that I assumed that inside that backplane connection with a full bandwidth (6Gb) connection to the RAID card per drive.

                So again, with that assumption, the card could potentially talk to all drives on both channels at full speed (i.e. 6 Gb x number of drives), but then would be limited to providing the max output of the card on the PCIe bus to the system, which in the stated case is 6 Gb.

                Now in the past, this hasn't been an issue - why not? As Travis said earier, spinning rust, winchester, drives normally don't saturate a 6 Gb connection.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • MattSpellerM
                  MattSpeller
                  last edited by

                  Always choose simplicity over complexity unless there's a mitigating factor.

                  SAS eliminates a whole boat load of other junk you'd need to buy, setup, support and also a ton of other failure points.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                    last edited by

                    @Dashrender said:

                    Can you even compare these two items?

                    6Gb SAS is the speed of the drives

                    8 Gb fibre is the connection speed between the host and the DAS chassis.

                    Right?

                    Most common DAS chassis connectivity is 6Gb/s SAS.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      So 8Gb/s FC is going to be marginally faster than 6Gb/s SAS in a pure "how much data can I push down this pipe in theory" perspective.

                      SAS is a little lighter protocol than FC, so it isn't a full win there. SAS is easier to deal with too.

                      And of course in the real world, price always matters and that makes SAS way better 99% of the time.

                      And if this is all that you are comparing it suggests that the 8Gb/s FC has a 6Gb/s SAS bottleneck sitting behind it, anyway.

                      And then the question is also... why not 12Gb/s SAS?

                      PSX_DefectorP 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • PSX_DefectorP
                        PSX_Defector @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        And then the question is also... why not 12Gb/s SAS?

                        If that's the determining factor, then why not 16Gbps FC, or even the upcoming massive speeds?

                        http://www.networkworld.com/article/2174282/lan-wan/fibre-channel-will-come-with-32-gigabit--128-gigabit-speeds-in-2016.html

                        Of course, if we are talking about pure speed with regards to interconnects between machines, then Infiniband blows them all away:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfiniBand

                        Fibre Channel has it's place. It's much more scaleable, why do you think every multi-tenant environment uses them? SAS interconnects are good for onesie/twosie type things, but when you need to scale more and more storage, it's much easier to pop it in the FC fabric. We provision new storage in a matter of hours integrating into our already large environment. The FC storage devices tend to be much more useful than straight SAS connected storage as well, with the ability to manage the suckers without so much as a blip in downtime.

                        If money is no object, I would buy Infiniband infrastructure and storage. If I need lots of it on the cheap, SAS. If I need more features, Fibre Channel.

                        scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @PSX_Defector
                          last edited by

                          @PSX_Defector said:

                          And then the question is also... why not 12Gb/s SAS?

                          If that's the determining factor, then why not 16Gbps FC, or even the upcoming massive speeds?

                          Because one is already in the readily available range and the other is expensive.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller @PSX_Defector
                            last edited by

                            @PSX_Defector said:

                            http://www.networkworld.com/article/2174282/lan-wan/fibre-channel-will-come-with-32-gigabit--128-gigabit-speeds-in-2016.html

                            I was on 96Gb/s two years ago 🙂

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • 1
                            • 2
                            • 2 / 2
                            • First post
                              Last post