Apple's never implemented SAS (let alone a built-in SAS RAID controller, such as an LSI 1064) as can be found on other enterprise grade systems, so it's not unreasonable to expect this to continue to be the case.The Mac Pro is really missing SAS. There are 6Gbps 15000RPM disks at very reasonable prices.
Which I need for (in a desktop machine)?#1 would be the additional error recovery and reporting support.
Not natively from what I can tell (chipset or any additional semi's on the board). It's an add on:Apart from the Xserve.
From the main information page.450GB 15,000-rpm SAS drive available as a third-party kit
From the Buy page.Promise 450GB SAS Drive for Xserve [Add $749.00]
They are faster than SATA.I don't know I just don't see the point of buying expensive drives that won't give me any speed increase, nor a plus in reliability compared to standard 24/7 drives.
Is error recovery really the must have in desktop drives?
read somewhere that the current apple raid controlers have SAS tooApple's never implemented SAS (let alone a built-in SAS RAID controller, such as an LSI 1064) as can be found on other enterprise grade systems, so it's not unreasonable to expect this to continue to be the case.
You'd need either an HBA (Host Bus Adapter that's non-RAID) or RAID card to support SAS disks (currently, ATTO is the only company I've seen with 6.0Gb/s SAS gear).
Check out the throughputs for the two different models. But based on the smaller cache and lesser warranty (big one IMO, as they almost certainly share the same mechanical parts), I'd probably go for the SATA versions if it were me.I'm try to decide whether to get SAS or SATA 2TB HDs for a 2010 MacPro. Newegg sells a Seagate Constellation SATA [$299] and Constellation SAS [$330]. So price isn't a factor.
Each has a drive speed of 7200rpm
SATA drive has 64MB Cache; SAS 16MB
SATA is 3Gb/sec; SAS is 6Gb/s
SATA warranty is 5/5; SAS is 3/3 [Seagate says both are "enterprise class"
MTBF for each is 1.2 million hours
I don't know how to trade-off throughput [if that is the right term] and cache. SATA has better cache [and warranty]; SAS better throughput.
I'll be using the HDs in a 4 or 5 disc RAID 5 [SSD for OS & Apps] with an Areca raid card [either 1880 or 1680]. HD reliability is important to me.
Any advice or suggestions?
Yes they do (SAS controllers support SATA disks, which is nice). I was referring to the logic board (not having to add a PCIe based card in order to provide SAS support).read somewhere that the current apple raid controllers have SAS too
So why do you care if they get loud and hot? They are in a server and servers runs in cool datacenters.They are loud, hot, low capacity, expensive and annoying. I have many in servers and wish I didn't.
The dev enviroment is in the same room with me. Its annoying.So why do you care if they get loud and hot? They are in a server and servers runs in cool datacenters.
SAS is a replacement of SCSI and SCSI disks are fast, can perform many operations at once, reliable and if you run out of capacity you just get some more..
So your running servers as a dev environment in the same room as yours? Well that's just stupid. If I where you I would have got a workstation as a dev server instead and the problem would have been solved.The dev enviroment is in the same room with me. Its annoying.