Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:18:32 -0700 (PDT) From: White Hat <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> To: FreeBSD Users Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server) Message-ID: <20060914161832.62373.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060914114608.e130c6a0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> wrote: > In response to Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet@esiee.fr>: > > > Gerard Seibert wrote: > > > Frank Bonnet wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > >> I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around > 10K$ > > > > > > Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason > that SATA or RAID with > > > SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. > > > > Because I want it > > Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has > the problems that plagued > ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? > > Personally, I still demand SCSI on production > servers because it still > seems as if: > a) The performance is still better > b) The reliability is still better > > But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA > offerings. It also > seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards > can support 16 > devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know > it's not common, but > if you need that many spindles, you need them! I have see benchmarks on the PC-Mag site or maybe it was PC-World that would seem to indicate that all things being equal, SATA would outperform SCSI. I have a few friends using SATA and RAID without any problems. My next server, hopefully by years end, will use that sort of configuration. Sorry, but that is about all I can tell you. -- White Hat pigskin_referee@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060914161832.62373.qmail>