![]() ![]() im not sure the Synology boxes even support SAS disks. Then there's the various integrity features that SAS has which SATA does not. The delay caused by sending commands over a half duplex channel is such a small part of the overall latency that it's not even worth talking about. ![]() Users of interactive applications aren't going to put up with that kind of delay, so it's not useful for the disk to support even deeper queues.Īs well as full duplex operation so you can queue commands to the disk while it's answering a read. High queue depths aren't going to be used on mechanical disks for any type of interactive application (read: anything were the user complains that it's "slow") because of the latency hit.Įven if we assume a 7.2K RPM disk can pull off 175 IOPS with a queue length of 32, you're still looking at worst-case I/O latency of around 200 milliseconds. This doesn't matter for the OP's use case. It makes a very big difference when it comes to random IOPS in particular, with the much deeper command queues SAS provides (32 NCQ vs 64k TCQ) as well as full duplex operation so you can queue commands to the disk while it's answering a read. If you're trying to solve complaints about slow performance, you will likely be disappointed regardless of which disk bus you choose. ![]() That being said, unless you're willing to invest in SSDs or a much large mechanical disk array, it probably won't be significantly faster than your current setup. SAS drives are also almost entirely designed and marketed for enterprise RAID array use, so it makes the integration work easier. I would go with SAS drives since they're aren't that much more expensive (all other things being equal). That's a physical performance limitation, and it's not something that SAS will fix. This is because you're accessing a significant amount of data, likely with a non-sequential I/O access pattern, on an array filled with mechanical disks. Things also slow down when working with 4K files. We've had issues in the past with multiple people accessing the storage and making things really slow. If you plan to add multiple shelves, the advantages of SAS will start to become noticeable. In a single-shelf, single-controller array with mechanical disks, there's not going to be a significant performance difference. It can be, but only under specific circumstances. My little research says SAS is much faster and reliable than SATA, obviously at a higher cost So are SAS drives a better investment? This is a significant expense for us so we're trying to make the smartest choice that works for at least 3 - 4 years.Īny advice would be super appreciated! Thanks! My little research says SAS is much faster and reliable than SATA, obviously at a higher cost. I was going to push the button on these 8TB HGST Ultrastar SATA drives, when I noticed that they also had SAS drives that have a max data read/write speed of 12gb/s as opposed to SATAIII's which are 6gb/s. ![]() We recently purchased this 12-bay Synology Rackstation that we were looking to install 8TB drives into. We have about 6 computers that we plan to attach to our NAS RAID storage via 10gbe network that we already have wired up. We're often also working with 4K video files. I work for a small video production company and we do a lot of jobs where we have multiple editors, motions graphics as well as 3D artists accessing the same storage for a project. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |