Timo Schoeler wrote: > Thus Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des_at_des.no> spake Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:56:58 > +0100: >> Don't blame me for your decision to use the most expensive type of >> storage available, especially when it has been conclusively shown that >> expensive server-grade disks are no more reliable than cheap consumer- >> grade disks. > > Hm. During the last ten years I for myself installed about 1,200 SCSI > HDs at customers (plus those that were installed by EMC in storage > systems at customers' sites) and at least thrice the amount IDE/SATA > HDs. > > There were hundreds (!) of defects of the consumer grade IDE/SATA HDs, > beautifully spreading over the whole spectrum of brands and models > used. > > Number of SCSI drives dead: Nine. > > I tend to believe there *is* a reason for companies to build > SCSI/SAS-only products, be it 'Workstations', Workstations, Servers or > storage systems. I think the interface is not responsible for the reliability of the hard disk drive. There are SATA drives and controllers out there that are supposed to be as reliable as SCSI/SAS drives and controllers. BjörnReceived on Sat Feb 16 2008 - 17:26:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:27 UTC