> Not to be picky, but the X2100 and X2200 series are > NOT > designed/targeted for disk serving (they don't even > have redundant power > supplies). They're compute-boxes. The X4100/X4200 > are what you are > looking for to get a flexible box more oriented > towards disk i/o and > expansion.
I don't see those as being any better suited to external discs other than: #1 - They have the capacity for redundant PSUs, which is irrelevant to my needs. #2 - They only have PCI Express slots, and I can't find any good external SATA interface cards on PCI Express I can't wrap my head around the idea that I should buy a lot more than I need, which still doesn't serve my purposes. The 4 disks in an x4100 still aren't enough, and the machine is a fair amount more costly. I just need mirrored boot drives, and an external disk array. > That said (if you're set on an X2200 M2), you are > probably better off > getting a PCI-E SCSI controller, and then attaching > it to an external > SCSI->SATA JBOD. There are plenty of external JBODs > out there which use > Ultra320/Ultra160 as a host interface and SATA as a > drive interface. > Sun will sell you a supported SCSI controller with > the X2200 M2 (the > "Sun StorageTek PCI-E Dual Channel Ultra320 SCSI > HBA"). > > SCSI is far better for a host attachment mechanism > than eSATA if you > plan on doing more than a couple of drives, which it > sounds like you > are. While the SCSI HBA is going to cost quite a bit > more than an eSATA > HBA, the external JBODs run about the same, and the > total difference is > going to be $300 or so across the whole setup (which > will cost you $5000 > or more fully populated). So the cost to use SCSI vs > eSATA as the host- > attach is a rounding error. I understand your comments in some ways, in others I do not. It sounds like we're moving backwards in time. Exactly why is SCSI "better" than SAS/SATA for external devices? From my experience (with other OSs/hardware platforms) the opposite is true. A nice SAS/SATA controller with external ports (especially those that allow multiple SAS/SATA drives via one cable - whichever tech you use) works wonderfully for me, and I get a nice thin/clean cable which makes cable management much more "enjoyable" in higher density situations. I also don't agree with the logic "just spend a mere $300 extra to use older technology!" $300 may not be much to large business, but things like this nickle and dime small business owners. There's a lot of things I'd prefer to spend $300 on than an expensive SCSI HBA which offers no advantages over a SAS counterpart, in fact offers disadvantages instead. Your input is of course highly valued, and it's quite possible I'm missing an important piece to the puzzle somewhere here, but I am not convinced this is the ideal solution - simply a "stick with the old stuff, it's easier" solution, which I am very much against. Thanks, David This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
