To those of you who deal with small and medium business class hardware, how much would one expect to pay for a SATA based 5.5TB file server? No further details are given so that you guys have room to theorize about different configurations and support options.

2/14/2006 8:06:12 PM

Nevermind, it's almost cheaper for a company to just buy 2-3 lacie rack mount storage servers, than it is for you to build one.

But if you've already got one, about 4500 bucks would seem like an ok retail, maybe 5000

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2006 8:13:15 PM

...

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 8:28 PM. Reason : Math Fixed]

2/14/2006 8:14:58 PM

haha, doh, fuzzy math.

2/14/2006 8:17:06 PM

^

Quote :

"Major : Nuclear Engineering/Physics"

You probably have a hard time doing math problems that don't have integrals or derivatives in it, don't you? I have the same problem, and it makes me feel stupid. It takes me forever to figure out percentages for tips

2/14/2006 8:19:52 PM

^ I know the feeling.

2/14/2006 8:25:28 PM

^^ Haha, nah usually I'm pretty good doing math in my head. But yeah, pull a couple all nighters on doster's evil homework's, the mad russian's programming assignments, and you start to forget how to deal with real numbers.

2/14/2006 10:42:53 PM

Quote :

"to those of you who deal with small and medium business class hardware, how much would one expect to pay for a SATA based 5.5TB file server? No further details are given so that you guys have room to theorize about different configurations and support options."

I priced a couple of Dell options the other week:
-The small scale NAS we looked at could only go up to ~1.8TB.
-A medium scale PowerEdge 2850 was $3500 to act as a server of some sort. An external SCSI connector goes to a PowerVault system, which houses up to 14 hard drives.
-The PowerVault was $4500 with 2x300GB hard drives in there. Each additional hard drive was $600. This limits you to a maximum of 4.2TB per PowerVault system. Total cost with 4.2TB ~$12000.
-Anything larger than the PowerVault system started using either NetApp or EMC Proprietary OS, which are built specifically for storing and moving large amounts of data. We wanted to stick with Windows Server 2003 so opted not to go this route.

[Edited on February 15, 2006 at 6:06 AM. Reason : fuzzy math]

2/15/2006 6:04:19 AM

are there any server grade sata drives out there? read: drives meant to be pegged 24/7 for years a time and don't shit the bed. if so, is the pricing any better than scsi? the reason I ask is because a scsi raid10 or raid5 array doesn't require as expensive a controller (popularity issue) and there are many options like expandable ram buffers and batteries for the ram (non-nv) to avert dataloss in a powerouttage situation.

2/15/2006 8:55:46 AM

Still looks like something like the lacie 2 TB rackmount solution is the best in terms of cost effectiveness. just get 3 of those.

2/15/2006 11:20:11 AM

^^SATA drives were never meant to be used like that. SCSI drives are full duplex and can handle running at full load all the time. SATA drives are just an evolution of PATA drives. They're not meant for high volume use. If you don't believe me, just ask your read/write buffers. For storage, SATA is cheaper, but for continous access, SCSI is the was to go.

2/15/2006 1:52:31 PM