Re: OT: scsi vs ide: some data
On 28 Feb 2002 23:48:28 -0500
Sean <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't have any IDE drives to test, but I can offer my main reason on
> going scsi instead of IDE. I still think that SCSI offers better
> response performance than IDE, while they are often close on raw data
> transfer. I've had numerous IDE drives fail after many years of service
> ... and I have yet to have a scsi drive fail on me. I think scsi
> hardware is just better hardware, kind of like the difference between a
> mercedes and a hyundai. Sure, they're both cars that perform the same
> function, and while one may go a little faster, most people don't need
> to go that fast in the first place, and there is a huge price
> differential. But the mercedes will still be running decades later,
> while the hyundia will most likely be sitting upon the scrap heap.
> That's probably not a very good analogy, but it's all I could think of
> at this late hour .... I like the idea of massively large storage for
> little money, but I don't see myself ever leaving scsi unless something
> drastic happens to its quality of manufacture.
Let me see. If your IDE drives only fail "after many years of service",
then the disposable solution is simple, buy a new IDE drive when the
time comes. I'm sure some new technology will turn your super-durable
SCSI drive into a relative sluggard. No wait! You're a Greenpeace
activist and land fills just horrify you ;-) But then why buy a Mercedes
or Hyundai, when you can take the train?