Why do we need SAS?

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

Dig Deeper



Find more PRO+ content and other member only offers, here.

Have a question for an expert?

Please add a title for your question

Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.

You will be able to add details on the next page.



Forgot Password?

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an email containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:


This Content Component encountered an error