Quoting Ian C. Sison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Bottom line? For systems which use 1 drive per bus, and have > dedicated I/O controllers (such as raid controllers), SCSI drives have > no advantage over IDE.
Sorry, it's not that simple. Cutting and pasting from my earlier post: "hot-fix mapping out of bad sectors automatically, scatter-gather at the hardware level, ability to do genuine low-level reformatting right in the host adapter BIOS, [and] more-stable standards". Also fewer IRQs consumed, and (usually) lower CPU load. That having been said, if I wanted maximum redundant storage for my dollar, I'd use software RAID on two, three, or four ATA drives. If I wanted to do that with less hassle and system complication, and higher performance, I'd eschew software RAID and use 3Ware (never Promise) ATA RAID. If I wanted higher hardware reliability and quality, and lack of protocol flakiness, I'd use software RAID on SCSI drives. Maybe using an LSI Logic SCSI chipset, e.g., on a Tekram card. They're cheap and reliable. I'm lastingly wary of hardware-RAID chipsets generally, because over time they mostly failed to live up to billing and the host adapters cost too much (Mylex, AMI MegaRAID...). The 3Ware has a pretty good reputation and is relatively cheap, though. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
