Re: [OT] SATA vs. SCSI
In article <[🔎] 200510272325.53231.gene.heskett@verizon.net>,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Thursday 27 October 2005 20:59, Allan Wind wrote:
>>On 2005-10-27T19:33:22-0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> Our first foray into using a scsi based commercial server resulted in
>>> its getting converted to ata disks fairly rapidly as the scsi raid
>>> lost a drive at 2 week intervals. A single big atapi/eide drive
>>> turned out to be faster, and a heck of a lot more reliable.
>>
>>While I feel for you, it's not a good idea to make decisions based on a
>>single installation. If you have disks dying every 2 weeks, something
>>else was up. Heat would be my first guess. Seagate, I think, had a
>>batch of bad SCSI drives recently.
>
>This was back when scsi drives were 8GB max, so quite a bit of water has
>passed by now.
If I've learned one thing about disks in the last few years, it's
that you should never ever buy the largest disks available.
I remember when 2 GB SCSI was common and 4 GB was brand-new, we
bought 4 GB disks. Lots of problems with heat, reliability ..
replaced them with 2 2 GB disks each, problem gone. Seagate, BTW.
I've seen the same pattern over the years with both SCSI and IDE
disks. Just buy disks half the size of the current maximum capacity.
Those models have the kinks worked out.
One other thing is that lots of people don't get SCSI termination
right. And that can cause lots of trouble that you don't have
with ATA/SATA, including things like (apparently, but not
really) failing disks.
Mike.
Reply to: