Re: [OT] SATA vs. SCSI
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 18:33 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> SCSI is *expensive*.
Yup. SCSI's way expensive. But he said *top*. And per disk, everything I
know and have read says top == SCSI. Top everything; speed, reliability,
price...
But Gene Heskett is probably right that a slew of parallel SATAs would
be more reliable -- done right, you'd (almost) always get warning when
you're about to lose your disk storage. And no matter how reliable a
single drive is, it can fail suddenly with no warning.
Of course, a big RAID would be expensive, too.
--
Glenn English
ghe@slsware.com
GPG ID: D0D7FF20
Reply to: