SCSI vs SATA for Virtual Machine SAN box

  • Thread starter Thread starter microsoft.public.windows.server.general
  • Start date Start date
M

microsoft.public.windows.server.general

Guest
We're getting a SAN to use with our VMs. We understand that SCSI
drives are much better for SAN used for VMs. Our price target requires
SATA, however. Has anyone seen a study of the performance drawbacks
and sacrifices that are inherit with using SATA rather than SCSI
drives for VM applications? - Dan
 
Re: SCSI vs SATA for Virtual Machine SAN box

It sounds to me that you drive your decision based on a budget.

First what you should do is to work out your application/storage
requirements, and not only in terms of storage capacity, also in terms of IO
throughput, backup, restore (RTO/RPO), and there are much more factors, this
is just some examples.

Once you know all that, than you match the best fit of your requirements to
your buget

If you just go and buy a SAN because that is what fits the budget, you will
probably be very dissapointed somewhere donw the line, where it becomes
obvious if the solution is no longer coping with your application load.

And during all the above, work with storage vendors in parrallel to give you
a hand.

rgds,
Edwin.


"microsoft.public.windows.server.general" <danatxenos@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ba84f6f7-da49-4c5a-89ab-880c92708c0b@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> We're getting a SAN to use with our VMs. We understand that SCSI
> drives are much better for SAN used for VMs. Our price target requires
> SATA, however. Has anyone seen a study of the performance drawbacks
> and sacrifices that are inherit with using SATA rather than SCSI
> drives for VM applications? - Dan
 
Back
Top