Al Hopper wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Ross wrote: > > .... reformatted ... >> Might be off-topic slightly, but why not raid-z2? We're looking at >> a thumper ourselves and I'd be nervous of data loss with single >> parity raid (I've had enough close calls with SCSI drives, let alone >> SATA). > > What do you mean by "let alone SATA"? > > One of the *big* issues with (parallel bus) SCSI, is, and always has > been, that a single "problem" SCSI device, could mess up the SCSI bus > and cause all kinds of nasty, system level, errors. And then there's > the old saying: "all SCSI issues are (caused by SCSI) bus termination > issues". All this aside from the issues with routing/supporting heavy > 68-wire external SCSI cables and connectors. > > I've personally (and professionally) been bitten by all 3 above > scenarios - more than once! IMHO, SATA point-to-point serial links > are far more reliable than anything I could build with SCSI > technology. > > Thank goodness for SATA and SAS....
I don't think he's referring to the bus architecture, although you are absolutely correct there. In my experience, any given SATA drive dies sooner than any given SCSI/FCAL drive (read: lower observed MTBF). In theory, all (modern) drives are the same with different logic boards stuck to the bottom, but somehow the numbers don't show that. I believe that Ross is referring to the same. Rob++ -- |Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __o |Life: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _`\<,_ | (_)/ (_) |"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." | -- Major General John Sedgwick _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
