Why do we need SAS?
I thought fibre channel was the serial implementation for SCSI. Why do we need another one (SAS)?

    Requires Free Membership to View

    Login

    Download Enterprise CIO Decisions for free after registering.

    After registering we will email you the latest issue as well as access to our archive of back issues. Get essential editorial insights that senior IT executives need to run IT operations effectively and efficiently.

    Get Enterprise CIO Decisions Now!

    By submitting your registration information to SearchCIO-MidMarket.com you agree to receive email communications from TechTarget and TechTarget partners. We encourage you to read our Privacy Policy which contains important disclosures about how we collect and use your registration and other information. If you reside outside of the United States, by submitting this registration information you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Your use of SearchCIO-MidMarket.com is governed by our Terms of Use. You may contact us at webmaster@TechTarget.com.

That's a fair question. There were a great many suppliers of disks that are installed in servers that never switched to fibre channel primarily because the components were a little more expensive than parallel SCSI; also, SCSI was on the motherboard, and fibre channel wasn't. Because of that cost differential, those vendors wanted a less expensive serial implementation that was high-performance (and, therefore, not serial ATA), and they developed serial-attached SCSI, or SAS. So, it's primarily a price issue, as the implementation is a little cheaper than fibre channel; but SAS is more limited in distance and performance.

This was first published in November 2004

Join the conversationComment

Share
Comments

    Results

    Contribute to the conversation

    All fields are required. Comments will appear at the bottom of the article.
    Back to top