On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Ian C. Sison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > 71 US$ SCSI as opposed to $0.00 for a built in IDE controller in the > > board is a big enough factor for me not to even consider scsi. > > No skin off my nose, as the saying goes. I'm not trying to change your > opinions, y'know.
Could have fooled me. But so far, i've seen nothing you've said that can change my stand on this issue, even if you "tried". > But I've _always_ had a preference for quality hardware. Lots of people > find it tough to credit that I'd insist on USR external Courier modems, > too. They likewise cost more than many alternatives. Ah but with raid systems, you don't need to get the best quality hardware right? What's that what RAID means again.. Redundant array of INEXPENSIVE disks? In a perfect world where the budget is 'bottomless' then you'ld have RAED, the 'E' standing for 'Expensive SCSI'. But the reality nowadays, is that there is no need for expensive disks in such an array. I would even criticize such a setup as overkill. It's a lot different when you are talking about an item that will potentially be a single point of failure. You really need good hardware for that. But designing systems with a single point of failure is bad(tm) anyway so why even bother? A redundant system (which all mission critical systems should be) you don't need the best hardware, you can opt for multiple well priced hardware setup. > And, when I see people having compatibility problems, and wrestling with > addressing modes, and getting wrapped up in drive-type tables, and > having data corruption because the low-end support circuitry was buggy, > and having to load dodgy emulation layers to address ATAPI devices, I > chuckle to myself, but not within hearing of the victim, as that would > be unkind. Gee if IDE was so hard to setup then it wouldn't be used as a standard in end user machines. And i can cite the same class of problems on an equivalent scsi system when the jumpers that select the SCSI IDs, and termination points all get mixed up. > I was saying that current-production hard drives of both types are > so friggin' huge as to be functionally the same for sane purposes. > Therefore, US $165 will buy you a "friggin' huge" drive of whichever > type you prefer. At that pricepoint, the ATA one will be technically > bigger (and therefore, if you get your rocks off from statistics, give > you more megs per dollar), but, in human terms in practically any > context, they're functionally the same. Of course they are not. Maybe in desktop systems they are (just how much software can you cram into a 160GB HD), but for database deployments or even a simple setup such a squid cache or news feed, size does matter, and the more the merrier. It's oversimplification to generalize that drives of differing capacities are functionally the same. > > And all the acknowledged advantages of SCSI over IDE is not enough to > > convince me to buy this acer drive over the IBM drive.... > > Are you assuming I care? No i am not assuming you care. But i care about the others reading the list (and actually asked about the merits of adopting an IDE system (the subject of this thread) versus a SCSI one. I point out what i believe is practical given todays technology and economics, which basically guides me in deciding which solution to choose. > I'm sorry to disappoint you. You assume too much. \8) _ 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]
