At 12:55 AM 8/17/2006 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> We are not stuck on SATA. The whole data directory has ~ 80GB of data
> so PATA would work just as well.
I fear you missed the point. This is hardly about SATA vs. PATA,
but rather about ATA vs. SCSI.
Au contraire - the argument is 'RAID', which, by definition, is _ _
*Inexpensive* Disks.
IME, SCSI drives are no more reliable than SATA or IDE. I have had two
drive failures in SCSI arrays in one year, and I have had SATA arrays
running 24/7 for five years with no problem whatsoever.
The expense of SCSI far outweigh any benefit of reliability for small
servers; keeping disks cool and the proper environment are far more
productive in the long run.
If you truly NEED redundancy on a small server, use rsync. No additonal
cost, immediate backup availabilty. We regulary setup rsync jobs to backup
drives (say, every 15 minutes), .. then rsync offsite at night for an
off-site backup. (Nightly is better for databases, however, ... it's much
simpler.)
If you have an enterprise need, SAN could be a much better way to go. (Of
course, you COULD build the SAN with SATA <g>!)
Lee
