From owner-freebsd-scsi Wed Feb 18 20:49:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02862 for freebsd-scsi-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 20:49:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (ala-ca34-51.ix.netcom.com [207.93.143.179]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02857 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 20:49:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/8.6.9) id UAA15764; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 20:48:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 20:48:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199802190448.UAA15764@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> To: gibbs@plutotech.com CC: tom@sdf.com, KILLSPAM%mlghome@home.com, weeteck@eecs.umich.edu, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199802182146.OAA25726@pluto.plutotech.com> (gibbs@plutotech.com) Subject: Re: very slow scsi performance From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Many recent Seagate drives are okay, but when I have the choice, I pick * IBM over Seagate. This has as much to do with reliability as with how * well behaved SCSI protocol wise, the IBM drives are. Their firmware is * rock solid and their reliability numbers leave Seagate in the dust. I don't know about that. The IBM DCHS ("Scorpion") drives have been nothing but problems for us, and need a lot of schmoozing to get them to work under pressure without locking up. (And I'm sure you know that too, because it's you who helped me get them run. :) As far as manufacturing quality (not firmware) goes, IBM drives are pretty good. We've had ~400 in our systems for about a year and only one has died outright so far. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message