> heh... thank goodness for _software_ raid, hm? > Yes, rather handy I thought. :-)
> aren't Quantum drives put out by Maxtor? and isn't the Quantum > line killed? if > my memory is serving me right on this, what you are seeing is the > difference > between a middle of the road hard disk manufacturer whose > speciality is not > really high end drives (maxtor) versus a top flight disk manu who > caters to > the enterprise (IBM). > Actually, 1999 is before Maxtor bought Quantum (see http://news.com.com/2100-1001-255087.html), and Quantum had (as far as I'd ever heard) an excellent reputation. That's why it was a Quantum drive in the first place. I have a 1.7 GB Quantum that's 7 years old and still going. I shuddered when Maxtor bought them. Besides, middle-end, high-end, whatever, I expect a hard drive with a 5 year warranty to last at least something _close_ to the length of its warranty period. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and I've used up 3 drives. I'm getting a little over a year per drive. Is the fact that they're SCSI got anything to do with that? Probably not. It's just an interface, after all. But a previous poster asked to be humoured with evidence that IDE is as good as SCSI, and that's been my experience with them, that's my evidence. :-) > which is, of course, why everyone who sets up serious data > systems uses SCSI > if they are going with a commodity solution? right. maybe you > should start > calling data centre around the world and letting them know. ;-) > If you ask me all this RAID stuff is there because the people setting it up are covering their asses because they know the SCSI drive is gonna die. ;-) > seriously though, SCSI is generally better than IDE. the gap has narrowed > CONSIDERABLY over the years, however. primarilly because of the > HUGE market > for IDE drives, ergo the increased R&D budgets. you can primarily thank a > certain company in Redmond and another associated with the colour > blue for > that. had the same efforts been put into SCSI, not only would the > prices be > what they are for IDE, we'd probably have larger, faster and more > reliable > drives today. SCSI technology has not topped out, is more > scalable and had a > head start on IDE. > If having a head start was the only qualification for choosing a technology, we'd be using Windows right now because they got a "head start" over Linux. I don't choose a technology because it came out first, I choose it because it works and I trust it. :-) Ian
