I don't know why it's true... I can state that I've had 3 of them so far, and had troubles with 2, and google is chock full of reports. Further, the info about them being the same as their IDE brethren isn't true, at least, the access rate specifications are higher for SATA drives, in general, as compared to IDE. Least they were the last time I checked, maybe it's changed inthe last 6 months.On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:22:25PM -0500, Andrew L. Gould wrote:
I was thinking about putting FreeBSD and swap on the ATA100 IDE hard drive and installing a SATA hard drive for home and database data. Is there any reason I shouldn't mix hard drive types? (I've never messed with SATA before.)
I have one PATA with FreeBSD installed, and two SATA striped with gvinum. Swap spread across all 3. No particular problems. The SATA drives are fairly recent models in 160G, the PATA is prior generation in 120G, all Hitachi. The SATA drives seem to handle seeks from multiple processes better than the PATA, better even than might expect from striping.
At about 4500 hours of runtime one SATA drive developed a bad block which the drive firmware was not able to automagically substitute. gvinum shut down.
I see no reason why a SATA drive should be less reliable than a PATA drive. Also remember back when one could purchase the same drive hardware in either PATA or SCSI, so find it hard to accept the interface makes much difference in reliability.
OTOH, when I first bought mine, I was comparing in my mind with SCSI, not IDE, maybe they *do* compare equally with IDE, is IDE that bad? Certainly, SATA is less reliable thant he scsi drives.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
