Jay Barrett wrote:
Jeremy,We have serveral servers at our office, running ATA and SCSI. We deployed a new application that required 4 servers, 2 running RAID SCSI and 2 running RAID IDE. We have had no problems at all with the SCSI devices but in 6 months we have replaced 8 IDE drives and have 2 more failing now. They are running 3Ware controllers. So in my opinion, if you can spare the extra money, go with SCSI.
In my simple mind Seagate's marketing team is grasping for straws to justify the higher cost, hence higher price for SCSI. The fact of the matter is that SCSI is predominantly used in servers and high-end workstation and these users are use to paying a premium. Their primary objective is to slow down the migration to lower margin products. Scary to think that the MTBF for ALL drives is about 10 years now, but I would recommend replacing them when you cycle your systems.
With serial ATA now available (loosely used term) on the market and serial SCSI on the horizon it will be interesting to see if they continue with the same story line.
I use both ATA and SCSI drives in my systems and servers, but have been moving towards ATA with 3Ware controllers. Now I'm looking forward towards 2.5" 10K serial ATA drives and being able to fit about 30 of them in a single 2U chassis. Given the fact that they use less power the give off less heat thus total reliability will be higher thus I can keep my mp3 files on-line longer (sorry just had to add that).
BTW I'm not knocking Seagate just their ruse, I actually prefer Seagate and IBM drives to the other folks. My 2 cents worth.
Jay
-- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
