Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:22:44 -0700 From: "randall ehren" <randall@ucsb.edu> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, <freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hitachi vs Seagate: Opinions wanted Message-ID: <005d01c45e06$12459020$0b936f80@net.isber.ucsb.edu> References: <20040629150632.J74139@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I've always used Seagate or Quantum drives in my servers ... with the > recent thought about switching to Dual-Athlon servers, from Intel, and the > caveats about both heat and power that I've had, its been recommended > switching to Hitachi drives from the usual Seagate ... also, apparently > the failure rates are higher on the Seagate's are much higher then the > Hitachi ... > > Since I can't say I've ever had a complaint (other then the U320 firmware > fiasco that Seagate did fix), I'm wondering if there is that much of a > difference with the Hitachi's to warrant the extra ~$50/drive ... ? if you've always used seagate and they have always worked, then why switch? we are a 100% seagate shop here, with the exception of when dell decides to use ibm/hitachi drives instead of seagate. those are often the drives that fail and i always make a note to dell requesting a seagate drive. if you're building a custom box, http://www.rackmountpro.com/ sells some nice 2U cases with 6 drives bays and a hot-swap backplane for whatever type of drive you plan to install. -randall -- randall s. ehren :// 805.893.5632 systems administrator :// isber.ucsb.edu institute for social, behavioral, and economic research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005d01c45e06$12459020$0b936f80>