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. You're really paying for two things when you buy SCSI/SAS. reliability under 100% duty cycle seek times As far as that article goes, I wonder if they are including SAS in the SATA catagory or the SCSI catagory. It's perfectly reasonable to phase out U320 SCSI....I can't see SAS going away any time soon. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel
pgpEiD1JSN0K4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
