Re: SATA on 5.0.6 or 5.0.7?
From: Michael S (donotuse_at_donotuse.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:55:04 GMT
I have switched over most of my small server installs over to SATA raid
using the intel SRCS16 raid controller and the 10K 36 gig raptor drives. So
far other then one of the cables breaking off the connector during shipping,
I have not had any probelms. On the smaller system running around 25 users,
I can not say that I can notice any speed differences between SCSI and SATA.
I am sure on the bigger customers there would be a difference, but for the
price difference SATA works extremely well for us. This is on 5.06 and
5.07, I have not tried it out on 6.0 yet.
"Steve M. Fabac, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Anyone running SCO 5.0.6 or 5.0.7 on servers with
> SATA drives?
> I'd like to hear from anyone with SATA based servers and if
> they met their exceptions for performance and reliability.
> In the past, I have always used SCSI drives for the performance
> and customary 5 year warrantee. Now SATA drives are available with
> 5 year warrantee and manufactures claim the drives are equivalent
> to SCSI performance at 40% less cost.
> I have checked my distributors and all the SATA drives I can find
> are 7200 RPM with the exception of the 36G WD360GD 10k RPM SATA
> I have a request from a client running SCO 3.2v4.2 on 66 MHz 486
> with 4G disk to upgrade to current hardware and OS.
> SCSI is overkill for this client and the 36G WD looks like a
> good choice. I'll eliminate all SCSI by using Backup Edge
> writing to a ATAPI DVD-RAM and upgrade the client to
> 5.0.6 or 5.0.7 (SCO's web site suggests it has upgrades to
> Enterprise 6.0 from Xenix/UNIX but there is no part number
> listed and inquiries come up: Not Available).
> Steve Fabac
> S.M. Fabac & Associates