Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:25:12 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Cc: Bill Swingle <unfurl@dub.net>, Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problems with Hitachi 1TB SATA drives Message-ID: <46A65218.5050808@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20070724183441.GA37120@freebie.xs4all.nl> References: <46A54B6F.9010100@dub.net> <20070724044208.GA79101@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <200707241518.35730.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200707241230.53119.josh@tcbug.org> <20070724182604.GA3759@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20070724183441.GA37120@freebie.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:26:04AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote.. >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:30:49PM -0500, Josh Paetzel wrote: >>> I don't have any experience with the Hitachi 1TB SATA drives, but I >>> know an outfit that was trying out the Seagate 1TB drives and had 8 >>> out of 12 fail their burn-in (a 3 day torture test) My luck with >>> consumer SATA drives has been incredibly dismal, with ~40 of them in >>> service I see multiple failures a year, including drives being DOA >>> and dying after a few weeks of service. I wouldn't be at all >>> surprised if one or both of the drives was bad right out of the box. > >> makes backing up 300GB+ of data easy. Everything that's capable of >> doing this is in the tens of thousands of US dollars, if not more. Am I >> going to sit around once a week backing up a terabyte of data to ~120 >> dual-layer 8.5GB DVDs? Nope. The closest thing out there right now is > > Which are only available in write-once in dual-layer so you would soon have > a landfill worth of DVDs. > >> A new IOMega REV (which includes one 70GB disk) costs US$600 MSRP. You >> read that right. > > Pff. Find a pre-owned SuperDLT or LTO drive? Not the cheapest I guess, > but dual-layer DVDs are not a solution IMHO. > > Or get a Blu-ray disk? Also still $$ > > I'm using an LTO2 drive myself. > >> * SCSI is outrageously expensive even in 2007. I have yet to see any >> shred of justification for why SCSI costs so much *even today*. It >> costs only a smidgen less than it did 15 years ago. >> For non-silly benchmarks, SCSI/SAS/FC is still far superior to SATA, and that is what you as the consumer are paying for. But without those high margins, you as the consumer won't have SATA either, at least not in the current business model. How do you think that R&D gets funded at drive companies? It's definitely not from the razor-thin margins that SATA has. Companies like WD make it work by having a very diverse business to fund SATA, but that's really no different than having SCSI/SAS/FC to fund SATA (though maybe less volatile). >> * SCSI is on its way out. Seagate recently announced that >> they'll no longer be supporting SCSI products, possibly by the end of >> next year: Yes, Seagate might be saying this, and I won't comment on the wisdom of it, other than to say that SAS/FC is not dead despite what Seagate wishes to do. In the future flash storage might ultimately overtake and replace platter storage, but that future has not yet arrived. >> >> "Seagate has announced that by next year they will no longer be >> supporting SCSI product and will be moving customers to the SATA >> interface." >> http://www.horizontechnology.com/news/market/market_perspective_storage_04-11-2007.php > > I imagine this is meant to read as: parallel SCSI, as opposed to SAS. > SAS is very much alive. > If Seagate is plotting a course to be a SATA-only company, I'm not terribly surprised. I would be saddened, though, and I feel sorry for my friends and neighbors who are currently Seagate employees. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A65218.5050808>