On Thursday 22 February 2007 02:21:08 pm John Andersen wrote:
> On Thursday 22 February 2007, Morten Bjørnsvik wrote:
> > |From: Kai Ponte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > |
> > |On Wednesday 21 February 2007 11:44:33 pm Joachim Schrod wrote:
> > |> John Andersen wrote:
> > |> > On Wednesday 21 February 2007, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> > |> >> 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.
> > |
> > |And another good reason is that they are DESIGNED to run 24/7
> > |for extended periods. IDE drives are not built to the same
> > |tolerances. You'll also find the MTBF is much shorter.
> >
> > This paper show there is NO connection between price, interface
> > technology and MTBF: (The study covers more than 100.000 disks over many
> > years):
> > http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder_html/index.h
> >tm l
> >
> > Google failure trends in large disk drive populations:
> > (more the same but not so diverified)
> > http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/pinheiro.html
> >
> > --
> > MortenB
>
> Thanks for the references.
>
> My point was that the historical differences between disk interface
> technology no longer exist, and manufacturer claims, in light of > 90%
> parts
> interchange-ability, are simply not believable, nor born out by actual use.
>
> Tolerances are hardly germane when the entire physical structure other than
> electronics is often identical across drive sizes, interfaces, and product
> lines.
>
> Yet some here persist (you know who you are Kai, ;-)  in echoing the dogma
> of yesteryear as to why scsi is better.  There was a time this was true.
> There was a time when a Lincoln was way better than a Ford.


I guess that is why I'm  a pointy-haired manager - and why they don't let me 
in the server room. :P

I can still find my way around stored procedures, though!

>
> Seagate offers 5 year warranties on sata these days.
> When it comes to buying drives, given two offerings with close-enough
> specs, I always go for the longer warranty.  Any minor saving in price
> today will be lost when the drive fails in three years instead of 5 or 8.

Wow - five years! I had no idea. 

I just bought some maxtor 320 GB thingy at fry's. I have no idea what warranty 
it has. 

-- 
kai

Free Compean and Ramos
http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to