On Wednesday 21 February 2007, Greg Freemyer wrote: > Those EVAs have quality SCSI drives. They are far more rugged than > PATA/SATA and they are designed to work hard their entire life. (ie. > IIRC 20% duty cycle is the design goal for PATA/SATA, 100% duty-cycle > for SCSI) > > There really is a reason that SCSI costs more in general, and HP uses > good SCSI drives on top of that.
The good reason is that people believe they are better, not that they actually ARE better. Compare some drives side by side of similar vintage and size and you will find there is well in excess of 90% parts inter-changeability. Chassis, motors, heads, arms, are usually identical. There MAY be some difference in platters, and there are some difference in electronics (although not as much as you might be lead to believe). There is nothing inherent in SCSI that makes it more durable. SCSI is sold into the expensive market because it works better in arrays which implies bigger machines, but you can get just as long a warranty on SATA if you want.. I've had far too many SCSI drives die in 24/7 servers while the ATA server right next to it with the same duty cycle and same vintage continued to survive long beyond their MTBF to pay any significant reverence at the shrine of SCSI. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
