I was going to stay out of this one... But MTBF is drive dependent. WD Raptors (a 10,000 RPM, 4.5ms seek time "enterprise" drive not really meant for the desktop but often used there) is rated at 1.2M hours, pretty much in line with all of the SCSI drives. Seagate Cheetahs, the self proclaimed "highest reliability in the industry" SCSI drive, is rated at 1.4M hours.
A good source for really comparing drives is http://www.storagereview.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Godzina Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [U2] [OT?] SATA vs SCSI drives No, SATA is closer to IDE than SCSI. Google for scsi versus sata, or scsi vs sata http://www.infotech.com/ITA/Issues/20050426/Articles/Cut%20Through%20the %20SAS%20vs,-d-,%20SATA%20Debate.aspx Might be enlightening. SCSI is still more reliable (greater MTBF), but more expensive (often, much more expensive). John ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
