SCSI vs SATA for Virtual Machine SAN box

[Guest microsoft.public.windows.server.general]

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

[Guest Edwin vMierlo [MVP]]

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