Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:40:36 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: very slow scsi performance Message-ID: <19980219114036.07982@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19980218181631.46512@awesome.us.dell.com>; from Jerry_Dunham on Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 06:16:31PM -0600 References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980218090826.19271C-100000@misery.sdf.com> <199802182146.OAA25726@pluto.plutotech.com> <19980218181631.46512@awesome.us.dell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I forwarded a message to a friend who works at a large computer manufacturer. Here's his reply. He asked that the name of the manufacturer not be revealed. On Wed, 18 February 1998 at 18:16:31 -0600, Jerry_Dunham wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 02:43:48PM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > >>>> Without a doubt, IBM. >>> >>> I have some doubts about that. Seagate Barracuda work really well >>> too. 20 drives in 24x7 so far, and no failures. >> >> 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. >> >> Granted, Pluto has been using mostly Seagate drives in it's Video DDR >> products for some time now, but there has always been the desire to use IBM >> instead. Now that IBM is making a strong move to better support the >> standard retail channel and will guarantee drive allocation to other than >> IBM internal customers (IBM is it's own biggest customer when it comes to >> storage products), it looks like this will be possible. The last time I >> saw the Seagate rep, he was pissing his pants over IBM. 8-) > > FWIW, IBM isn't perfect. We've had some serious firmware issues with > them at times, though Seagate is no better, and the 1.6 GB drive we're > now using as our smallest was initially rather fragile (while the 1.4 > and 2.1 were solid). This, of course, only applies to the 2.5-inch > drives, but it's an indication that IBM doesn't walk on water. Based > upon what I see internally (and I don't see everything), I'd choose > IBM first, Fujitsu second, Quantum third, and Seagate fourth, but that > ranking could easily be scrambled if you based it upon individual > products, rather than overall records. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980219114036.07982>