My server has 8 "hot-plug" slots, that can accept both SATA and SAS drives. SATA ones tend to be cheaper for the same features (like cache-sizes), what am I getting for the extra money spent on SAS?
Asking specifically about the protocol differences... It would seem, for example, SATA can not be as easily hot-plugged, but with camcontrol(8) that should not be a problem, right? What else? Thank you!
Sent from mobile device, please, pardon shorthand.
> On 09 Aug 2017, at 17:59, Alan Somers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 3) SAS drives have a lot of fancy features that you may not need or
> care about. For example, (...) their error
> reporting capabilities are more sophisticated than SMART
Really interesting answer Alan, thank you very much !
Slightly off-topic but I take this opportunity,
how do you check SAS drives health ?
I personally cron a background long test every 2 weeks (using smartmontools).
I did not experience SAS drive error yet, so not sure how this behaves.
Does the drive reports to FreeBSD when its read or write error rate cross
a threshold (so that we can replace it before it fails) ?
Or perhaps smartd will do ?
As an example below a SAS error counter log returned by smartctl :
Errors Corrected by Total Correction Gigabytes Total
ECC rereads/ errors algorithm processed uncorrected
fast | delayed rewrites corrected invocations [10^9 bytes] errors
read: 0 49 0 49 233662 73743.588 0
write: 0 3 0 3 83996 9118.895 0
verify: 0 0 0 0 28712 0.000 0