Am Samstag, 18. März 2006 04:53 schrieb Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade: > 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).
The SCSI command set allows more precise fault detection. What good is a raid if the system deosn't know about failed disks? > > 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. I'd rather go for harware less likely to fail n the first place. The one thing is "precaution", the other is "lessen risk and damage in fault case". I like precaution better. Same reason why don't prefer a shoddy car with airbag over a decent car with airbag solely for a bargain. Comes down to "depends" - how much your data and uptime is worth to you and how critical it is in a produvtion environment. Dex -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C+++(++++) UL+>++++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K- w--(---) !O M+ V- PS++(+) PE(-) Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@ b++(+++) DI+++ D G++ e* h>++ r%>* y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ http://www.stop1984.com http://www.againsttcpa.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
