From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 16 18:26:19 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E11616A421 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:26:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bkoenig@alpha-tierchen.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C0A13C45D for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:26:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bkoenig@alpha-tierchen.de) Received: from webmail.alpha-tierchen.de (port-212-202-40-215.dynamic.qsc.de [212.202.40.215]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD3AE351A; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:02:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (SquirrelMail authenticated user bkoenig) by webmail.alpha-tierchen.de with HTTP; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:02:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52039.192.168.1.2.1203184958.squirrel@webmail.alpha-tierchen.de> In-Reply-To: <20080216182017.734f619c.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> References: <86r6fdx0tf.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080216113721.GA55702@voi.aagh.net> <86tzk8vnz9.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080216182017.734f619c.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:02:38 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= To: "Timo Schoeler" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.0-RC2 Available X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:26:19 -0000 Timo Schoeler wrote: > Thus Dag-Erling Smørgrav spake Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:56:58 > +0100: >> Don't blame me for your decision to use the most expensive type of >> storage available, especially when it has been conclusively shown that >> expensive server-grade disks are no more reliable than cheap consumer- >> grade disks. > > Hm. During the last ten years I for myself installed about 1,200 SCSI > HDs at customers (plus those that were installed by EMC in storage > systems at customers' sites) and at least thrice the amount IDE/SATA > HDs. > > There were hundreds (!) of defects of the consumer grade IDE/SATA HDs, > beautifully spreading over the whole spectrum of brands and models > used. > > Number of SCSI drives dead: Nine. > > I tend to believe there *is* a reason for companies to build > SCSI/SAS-only products, be it 'Workstations', Workstations, Servers or > storage systems. I think the interface is not responsible for the reliability of the hard disk drive. There are SATA drives and controllers out there that are supposed to be as reliable as SCSI/SAS drives and controllers. Björn