SATA is perfectly fine for 90% of what people do. It's the 8% that need something more that would need SAS based while the last 2% will need PCI-E performance.
With numbers like those, ML seems like an odd place to be talking/worrying about it. Also, are the last 10% really looking at a Scale Cluster? I suppose some percentage of them might be.
90% of what people do, not 90% of people. It's a much higher percentage of people. That's why the Scale HC3 tiering system is such a good fit, we believe. It allows the majority of your storage to be tuned to sit on the SATA drives, which are perfectly fast enough for 90% of your needs, and lets the 10% of your needs that need to be on high performance SSD to sit there without needing two different solutions.
And with our heat mapping technology we help to tune the workloads for what is used rather than forcing you to pick manually for all workloads. You can override this with manual priorities, but on its own it self tunes.
So our hope is that the 90/10 split which is a good way to think of it actually makes Scale ideal for the majority of users because they have the 90/10 mix rather than in spite of it.
Now. But I haven't always. I worked for government localities with under 300 employees before.
And I run into it working for tiny companies, not the big ones.
Yep. I wouldn't deal with for the most part here even if we had it. I manage the servers and the network/routers and MPLS as the Systems Engineer. We have people that handle most of the applications. some of the SQL management falls on me but, very little.
The only real reason I would see for not going with thin provisions would be poor planning and then running out of space. otherwise I don't see a issue or reason not to go with it if it's planned well.
That is a surprisingly common fear that I have heard.