From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 14 15:46:10 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 10D5B16A40F for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:46:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861F643D80 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:46:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from collaborativefusion.com (mx01.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.201]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:46:08 -0400 id 0005641C.45097940.000128B8 Received: from Internal Mail-Server (206.210.89.202) by mx01 (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Sep 2006 11:43:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:46:08 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Frank Bonnet Message-Id: <20060914114608.e130c6a0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <4509768C.5030602@esiee.fr> References: <45096C88.4030203@esiee.fr> <20060914111843.91BC.GERARD@seibercom.net> <4509768C.5030602@esiee.fr> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: 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 15:46:10 -0000 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! -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.