Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:56:19 -0600 (MDT) From: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@plutotech.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ahc & CAM: strange diagnostic Message-ID: <199809302256.QAA02415@panzer.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: <199809302231.PAA03681@dingo.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Sep 30, 98 03:31:08 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ trimmed -current off the CC list ] Mike Smith wrote... > > One more argument in favor of IBM disks is that they reputedly run > > cooler and quieter than Quantum or Seagate disks. > > I can't speak for the 7200 and 10000rpm IBM disks, as I have never been > able to source them when I've been considering them. I can say that > IBM go to considerable lengths to make their cooling data available > (see the product pages for their drives), and they do appear to be > comparable if not somewhat better than the competition. Yeah, they've got nice drives. I've got an Ultrastar 9ZX (10000RPM) at home, ant it's quite nice. Some of the newer IBM drives have onboard temperature sensors, and will supposedly start failing commands if they get too hot. (with a sense code that indicates the problem) My disk hasn't gotten that hot yet, though. > OTOH, we have been running a 9GB Seagate Cheetah in Freefall holding > the CVS repository, and despite being far and away the busiest disk in > the system it has kept its cool quite well. That's because it's a second generation Cheetah. The second generation Cheetahs run a good bit cooler, I think. They're also faster than the 10,000 RPM IBM disks. (the first generation Cheetahs were slower than the IBM disks) Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@plutotech.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809302256.QAA02415>