Thus Björn König <bkoenig_at_alpha-tierchen.de> spake Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:02:38 +0100 (CET): > 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. Indeed, not the interface itself. But the ball bearings (if any, more and more use liquid technology) are of much better quality. Well, one pays a premium for that (not only for that), no question. (And, besides that, SCSI always had nice features as TCQ etc that now appear in SATA land...) > There are SATA drives and controllers out there that > are supposed to be as reliable as SCSI/SAS drives and controllers. The 'server grade' SATA drives appeared during the last years (like WD's 'RAID Edition'); before that, IDE/SATA was just plain 'consumer grade' stuff. In fact, most IDE/SATA drives were never specified to run 24/7, in contrast to SCSI (server) HDs. > Björn TimoReceived on Sat Feb 16 2008 - 17:30:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:27 UTC