Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:31:18 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> Cc: Bill Swingle <unfurl@dub.net>, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problems with Hitachi 1TB SATA drives Message-ID: <46A65386.9050706@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <200707241346.21714.josh@tcbug.org> References: <46A54B6F.9010100@dub.net> <200707241230.53119.josh@tcbug.org> <20070724182604.GA3759@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <200707241346.21714.josh@tcbug.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Josh Paetzel wrote: > On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> * 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. >> >> * 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: >> >> "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_sto >> rage_04-11-2007.php >> >> I'm willing to bet others will follow suit. > > It's more than just an interface. SCSI drives are manufactured with > completely different components than IDE/SATA drives. The platters > have different materials on them, the heads are different, the > actuators are different. The higher spindle speeds present different > engineering challanges, if you know anything about physics you'll > realize the difference between spinning something at 7200rpm and > 15,000rpm is not linear in terms of the forces involved. Actually, the reliability/component quality argument really isn't true anymore. This was especially the case with the IBM DDYS Ultrastar line, and I've heard many rumors since then of the trend continuing. It may not be a universal truth, but it's not the easy distinction that it used to be. > > You're really paying for two things when you buy SCSI/SAS. > > reliability under 100% duty cycle See above. > seek times Yes, very true, both from a spindle speed perspective and from a queue depth perspective. All that said, I'd love to be able to afford SAS for all of my computers. For real workloads, it's far superior to SATA. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46A65386.9050706>