FATA disks compared to SATA | SQL Server Performance Forums

SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

FATA disks compared to SATA

Anyone knows the difference in performance for a san with 2TB between SATA and FATA for the same number of spindles?
Won’t Ata increase cpu performance?
The load is approx 90% read.

Can you afford the FIbre channel disk drives that can really benefit from the latency. On the aspect of performance aside and assuming that your environment and applications will be fine today and in the future with the FATA disk drives, that is a viable option. Also depending upon the application & database usage in considering the performance and configuration to support your applications needs including the longer disk drive rebuild time for the larger capacity disk drives now and in the future.
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/expert/KnowledgebaseAnswer/0,289625,sid5_gci1002179,00.html fyi and I’m sure you will get more insight from Joe in this case. Satya SKJ
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Writer, Contributing Editor & Moderator
This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing. Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information on it.
personnally, I think it is ridiculous doing xATA in a SAN
because you are paying alot of money for cheap disks a while back, i was at a site that used a very large SAN with FC disks for DB,
and FATA for the backups
the backup performance was just horrible, 200MB/sec
considering the FC disks (24FC ports, 700+disks) could do atleast 2.4GB/sec, probably 3.8GB/sec if it had been properly configured the FATA disks could only do 220MB/sec write, 600MB/sec read (4 FC ports, 60+ disks) apparently, the design engineers of the SAN were so worried about FATA reliability, that they implemented a read after write policy, so all writes to FATA disks are immediately read to verify the write now so disk vendors offer "enterprise" rated SATA drives, presumably the same
5 year/100% duty cycle of SCSI/SAS/FC drives instead of the 2 year/20% duty cycle for consumer drives i recall the term FATA was a ATA drive, that is later connected/converted to a FC,
since it is really an ATA drive, calling it FATA is supposed to make you feel better about paying $2000 for a $200 drive? anyways, there is no difference in performance between ATA and SATA at the individual drive level,
however, going forward, SATA is easier to capable, and there are controllers that can handle 8+ SAS/SATA drives,
so newer systems will be SAS/SATA,
ATA/FATA will slowly go away