On Mar 17, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Dexter Filmore wrote:
If affordable, I go for SCSI. sATA = consumer cruft.
SATA is actually pretty good in terms of reliability. WD and Seagate, I think, offer "server-class" SATA drives (which just means they have a lower MTBF and cost more).
Besides, with modern SATA drives, price/performance-wise, you can buy much more capacity in hot-spares than you can with SCSI.
Six 300GB SATA drives (four in raid 5, two hot spare (is that raid6 with a hot spare?)) will likely be significantly cheaper than the amount for SCSI drives you'd need to get a 900GB array with two hot spares.
Gregory -- Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
