mibuso.com
Home› NAV/Navision Classic Client

SCSI vs SATA

bank_holdupbank_holdup Member Posts: 10
edited 2007-02-02 in NAV/Navision Classic Client
How big of a performance difference is there between a SCSI RAID and a SATA RAID?

We are looking to purchase a new upgraded server for Navision 4.0 and I'm wondering if there is a significant performance benefit from the SCSI RAID over the SATA RAID vs the cost of each.

Our current system has a SCSI RAID-10 and we have been less than impressed with its performance.

Thanks!

Comments

  • SavatageSavatage Member Posts: 7,142
    there are alot of articles on google about

    SCSI vs SATA

    http://www.google.com/search?q=SATA+VS+SCSI
    Harry Ruiz
    http://www.BiloBeauty.com
    http://www.autismspeaks.org
  • Marije_BrummelMarije_Brummel Member, Moderators Design Patterns Posts: 4,262
    What system are you running? Have you looked at other performance gains yet?

    I do a lot of performance tuning and often find systems running on huge hardware, still having issues.

    The usual solution is not hardware but keys, indexes, maintenance, archiving, stuff like that.
    Marije Brummel | Freelance Business Central Specialist
  • bank_holdupbank_holdup Member Posts: 10
    We're currently running Nav 4.01 on a windows 2003 server, quad xeon 3.8GHz with 4 GB of RAM. The data files reside on a RAID 10 with the log file on a seperate raid 1.

    I KNOW the custom code we received from our VAR is bloated and far from optimized (we have since left them). Our new VAT has suggested the hardware upgrade in conjunction with software optimization. My concern is that any performance gain from scsi over sata is negligible when compared to the cost of the drives.
  • Marije_BrummelMarije_Brummel Member, Moderators Design Patterns Posts: 4,262
    Maybe better to start with software, see how it works and then do hardware.

    You do not need to leave your partner to get issues solved. There are specialists that work together with partners in solving issues.

    :whistle:
    Marije Brummel | Freelance Business Central Specialist
  • bank_holdupbank_holdup Member Posts: 10
    I can appreciate that. However, as soon as we went live last year, our support from them went to zero. We consistently found logic errors in their custom code and features we requested repeatedly before implementation were missing. After we switched VARs, we started finding poorly structed code that was meant to "just work" and custom code created which simply mimicked existing native Navision functions.

    Aside from the codeing/development issues, they provided training only to our accounting department (3 people out of 50). We couldn't even get them back to show the IT department how to manage Navision. It is pretty sad when an accounts-receivable person has to show the IT department how assign permissions and synchronize a user.
  • SavatageSavatage Member Posts: 7,142
    bank_holdup wrote:
    We're currently running Nav 4.01 on a windows 2003 server, quad xeon 3.8GHz with 4 GB of RAM. The data files reside on a RAID 10 with the log file on a seperate raid 1.

    What size is your database?
    These specs are far superior to the server I use.

    Our Drives are 5 SCSI 15K Cheetah Hard Drives
    -1 for operating system
    -4 for database (2 raid 1's) database split in two.
    2 Xeon 2.4GHz
    1 GB Ram
    Windows 2000 Server
    20GB Native Database
    Our speed is pretty good
    Harry Ruiz
    http://www.BiloBeauty.com
    http://www.autismspeaks.org
  • nunomaianunomaia Member Posts: 1,153
    From what I have seen Native database it’s faster than SQL Server. That’s why Savatage has a good performance only with 1G RAM. :D
    Nuno Maia

    Freelance Dynamics AX
    Blog : http://axnmaia.wordpress.com/
  • David_SingletonDavid_Singleton Member Posts: 5,479
    I would say that to answer that question, you really need to define SQL or Native.

    I would be guessing, but my guess would be that SQL would be faster with SCSI, but Native with SATA.

    On Native-
    In rough terms SCSI drives are about double SATA drives and that would mean that you would have twice as many drives if you had SATA, and it would be RAID 1 so there shouldn't be too much of an issue with getting good controllers for SATA. But of course since you have more physical drives, you will need a bigger box, and external drive boxes can be expensive, and I am not sure how easy it is to find external boxes for SATA. But if we are saying twice as many SATA drives, I think it would be faster than SCSI. Keep in mind that with Native the math is easy 2x Drives == 2x speed.

    SQL-
    (I guess since you have a log file you are on SQL). I think SCSI would be faster. Your DB is going to be on RAID 10, and there are not a lot of RAID 10 SATA controllers, so in the SCSI world you are going to get a controller that knows what to do with those drives, and how to get the most out of them. Also there is a ton of support for SQL on SCSI RAID 10, so I think it would end out being better.

    *Disclaimer* I don't know, I am only guessing.
    David Singleton
Sign In or Register to comment.