Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 03:09:16 +1000 From: Rob B <rbyrnes@ozemail.com.au> To: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: reliable HDD brand (LONG) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010929030312.01e21070@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <001701c14839$06b8e1c0$14ce21c7@avatar.com> References: <F125IHYtLvW0YJV12Dp000096f4@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:17 29/09/2001, Kory Hamzeh wrote: >Why is SCSI more reliable than, say IDE, when SCSI dictates the host >interface? Is the actual data encoding on the platter any more reliable? Is >the drive spindle motor or head servo any more reliable? Traditionally, the second point, although nowadays the mechanisms tend to be shared between SCSI and IDE devices. Rob >I use to run SCSI >exclusively, but I had so much trouble, specially when the Ultra-Wide stuff >came out that I switched to IDE. Other then one problem with the IBM 75GXP >45G, IDE was been more reliable for me than SCSI. > >I agree they are not as fast as IDE. > >Kory > > > In general, if you want reliability, go SCSI, mirroring IDE or, RAID5 IDE > > and have a hot spare. If you want enterprise reliability (which > > you probably > > don't if you were considering IDE drives) get a solid state > > drive. They are > > usually above USD$25,000. Ouch. (These things are also blazing > > fast as far > > as access time--great for that "special" 5% of files on a big file server) > > > > > > Charles N Burns -- The Californians are an idle thriftless people, and can make nothing for themselves. This is random quote 906 of a collection of 1161 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.1.0.14.2.20010929030312.01e21070>