From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 14 16:18:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386B916A416 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:18:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pigskin_referee@yahoo.com) Received: from web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.163.178.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 163B943D6A for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:18:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pigskin_referee@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 62377 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Sep 2006 16:18:32 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Viaizm/HjRvCzLSNNXmicW+eUS3rzBWUX0Z+BiDI8ga0I6AC0DEODMqL3uVEWdwr787UzaFsb07/vr7pkYbRDWihdoOO3NKnsOHp3YJEe/qvf2Y34ucPa8xm/1XgKvzRL/uz5XnJs7tsxCvZDTs5wB2az52B26WBHv3GqngONso= ; Message-ID: <20060914161832.62373.qmail@web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [67.189.184.224] by web34415.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:18:32 PDT Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:18:32 -0700 (PDT) From: White Hat To: FreeBSD Users Questions In-Reply-To: <20060914114608.e130c6a0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:18:38 -0000 --- Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Frank Bonnet : > > > 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