Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:42:57 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> Cc: "Wilkinson,Alex" <Alex.Wilkinson@dsto.defence.gov.au>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: [hardware] Tagged Command Queuing or Larger Cache ? Message-ID: <20021028204130.D59907-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org> In-Reply-To: <20021028202933.Q59710-100000@april.chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You might want to give that a bit of thought. IBM, while producing OK > scsi disks, has had a really terrible headache getting reliability into > their IDE products. Additionally, IBM just sold their entire hard disk > product line to some other company. I don't know if that had anything to > do with their well-publicized IDE reliability problems or not, but I'd > fight shy of any IBM IDE disks, in any app which requires any kind of > stability. > > If you don't care about reliability, tho, there are some good deals I've > seen on those disks, tho ... being dumped in mass cheaply. Again, this > has nothing to do with their scsi disks, which are just fine. > I'd probably steer clear of the western digital drives as well. Yes the 8MB cache that some of them have DOES make a difference, but from personal experience, the drives themselves don't last that long. So in short, what good is a fast hard-drive if it's just going to break faster too? Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021028204130.D59907-100000>