--- Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In response to Frank Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Gerard Seibert wrote: > > > Frank Bonnet wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > >> I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around > 10K$ > > > > > > Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason > that SATA or RAID with > > > SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. > > > > Because I want it > > Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has > the problems that plagued > ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? > > Personally, I still demand SCSI on production > servers because it still > seems as if: > a) The performance is still better > b) The reliability is still better > > But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA > offerings. It also > seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards > can support 16 > devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know > it's not common, but > if you need that many spindles, you need them!
I have see benchmarks on the PC-Mag site or maybe it was PC-World that would seem to indicate that all things being equal, SATA would outperform SCSI. I have a few friends using SATA and RAID without any problems. My next server, hopefully by years end, will use that sort of configuration. Sorry, but that is about all I can tell you. -- White Hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"