Is SCSI still the most reliable?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

The connectors seem to be far better made as well. I'm running a 9 gb hard drive for my OS and any
programs that have to run on C: drive. So far, its more than big enough. Its really noisy though. Sort
of a whine that drills into your head after a few hours. What about a noise suppressing case with a
fan? Or does anyone make an aluminum sleeve that it would fit into, that would muffle noise and conduct
heat away from the drive? And speaking of noise, why doesn't someone make a fanless power supply that
sits outside your case? It could get very hot, and it would't heat up your components.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Frank W. <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote:
> The connectors seem to be far better made as well. I'm running a 9
> gb hard drive for my OS and any programs that have to run on C:
> drive. So far, its more than big enough. Its really noisy though.
> Sort of a whine that drills into your head after a few hours.

You can get relatively quiet SCSI disks today. Look at the
datasheets.

> What
> about a noise suppressing case with a fan? Or does anyone make an
> aluminum sleeve that it would fit into, that would muffle noise and
> conduct heat away from the drive?

Risky. Heat is the primary enemy of disks besides shock. And
deives have gotten massively more shock resistant recently.

> And speaking of noise, why
> doesn't someone make a fanless power supply that sits outside your
> case? It could get very hot, and it would't heat up your
> components.

You can get this type of PSU, e.g. from Thermaltake and others.
The problem is that you likely need to use chassis-fans
with them to not overheat the rest of the PC. You can also get
very quiet PSUs with fans today.

Arno

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> Nope, I gave up on SCSI a long time ago now.
>
> Modern IDE drives are much better value

This is subjective.

> and are much quieter usually.

I agree.

However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.

SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.

Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.


Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nope, I gave up on SCSI a long time ago now.
>>
>> Modern IDE drives are much better value
>
> This is subjective.
>
>> and are much quieter usually.
>
> I agree.
>
> However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.
>
> SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.

"Infinitely"? You mean that they never fail, ever?
>
> Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.
>
>
> Odie

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:42261BD3.8AE9BA6F@hotmail.com...
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Nope, I gave up on SCSI a long time ago now.

>> Modern IDE drives are much better value

> This is subjective.

Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.

>> and are much quieter usually.

> I agree.

> However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.

> SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.

> Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.

You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
> purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.

Hence my use of the word "subjective."


> >> and are much quieter usually.
>
> > I agree.
>
> > However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.
>
> > SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.
>
> That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
> much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.


First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives) are going to
be more reliable than a single SCSI drive. Secondly, there is no way
that two mirrored IDE drives are going to be more reliable than two
mirrored SCSI drives.


> > Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.
>
> You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.

More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?

I doubt it.


Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
>> purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.
>
> Hence my use of the word "subjective."
>
>
>> >> and are much quieter usually.
>>
>> > I agree.
>>
>> > However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.
>>
>> > SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.
>>
>> That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
>> much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.
>
>
> First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives) are going to
> be more reliable than a single SCSI drive. Secondly, there is no way
> that two mirrored IDE drives are going to be more reliable than two
> mirrored SCSI drives.

Define "reliable". Two drives are not as reliable as one drive in the sense
of probability of needing repair. A mirrored pair of IDE drives will be
vastly more reliable than one SCSI drive in terms of probability of data
loss however.
>
>
>> > Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.
>>
>> You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.
>
> More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?

More reliable than a SCSI system which costs the same.

> I doubt it.

If you think that a single SCSI drive is preferable in terms of preservation
of data to mirrored IDE drives, you need to start looking at the numbers
instead of the lining of your hat.

The simple fact is that SCSI is overpriced for what it delivers for all but
a few specialized applications.
>
>
> Odie

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> > Rod Speed wrote:
> >>


I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of day-to-day
experience of this topic. In real life, of course.

Of course, you are totally missing the meaning of "subjective."


Odie
--

Retrodata
The Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>
>
> I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of day-to-day
> experience of this topic. In real life, of course.

And you're just figuring this out? I have been saying this for years. Like
the old saying, "Go SCSI young man, go SCSI and never look back". There's
no substitute for the performance and reliability of SCSI.



Rita

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous wrote:

> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> > Rod Speed wrote:
>> >>
>
>
> I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of day-to-day
> experience of this topic. In real life, of course.
>
> Of course, you are totally missing the meaning of "subjective."

Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and numerous
with SCSI, and I don't notice either (a) any systematic difference in the
reliability of the drives or (b) that there is any single drive that is
more reliable at preserving data integrity than any mirrored pair or array
with parity.

As for the meaning of "subjective", if all you have is an opinion then you
really shouldn't pontificate quite so much about drive reliability.

From what I've been able to gather your "real world experience" is based in
the pattern of busted drives you see coming in from others. There are so
many ways that that data could be skewed that a student in a college level
statistics course could get a term paper out of it.

> Odie

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

>Odie Ferrous wrote:
>>
>> I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of day-to-day
>> experience of this topic. In real life, of course.
>
>And you're just figuring this out? I have been saying this for years.

What trolls like you say doesn't carry much weight, "Rita".

>Like the old saying, "Go SCSI young man, go SCSI and never look back".
>There's no substitute for the performance and reliability of SCSI.

There's no substitute for the clue you lack.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and
numerous
> with SCSI, and I don't notice either (a) any systematic difference in the
> reliability of the drives or (b) that there is any single drive that is
> more reliable at preserving data integrity than any mirrored pair or array
> with parity.

This is your anecdotal experience, or _opinion_, which, along with mine,
doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things when discussing a topic
as broad as "reliablity".

> As for the meaning of "subjective", if all you have is an opinion then you
> really shouldn't pontificate quite so much about drive reliability.

Isn't that what you just did, in the first above paragraph?

> From what I've been able to gather your "real world experience" is based
in
> the pattern of busted drives you see coming in from others. There are so
> many ways that that data could be skewed that a student in a college level
> statistics course could get a term paper out of it.

You want "real world experience"? Query large data centers (especially banks
and insurance companies), where meeting service level objectives determine
_careers_ , that have _thousands_ of servers with truly "mission-critical"
applications, and see how many are running IDE drives.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Chuck U. Farley wrote:

>> Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and
> numerous
>> with SCSI, and I don't notice either (a) any systematic difference in the
>> reliability of the drives or (b) that there is any single drive that is
>> more reliable at preserving data integrity than any mirrored pair or
>> array with parity.
>
> This is your anecdotal experience, or _opinion_, which, along with mine,
> doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things when discussing a
> topic as broad as "reliablity".

That which can be calculated is not an opinion. The probability of both
drives in a mirrored pair failing simultaneously vs a single drive failing
can be calculated. You have to make rather unrealistic assumptions about
the difference in reliability between the drives before you get a number
that favors the single drive.

>> As for the meaning of "subjective", if all you have is an opinion then
>> you really shouldn't pontificate quite so much about drive reliability.
>
> Isn't that what you just did, in the first above paragraph?

Nope. I'm not the one making unqualified claims like "SCSI is infinitely
more reliable than IDE". I stated that that was in my experience, I did
not say absolutely that anything was infinitely better than anything else.

>> From what I've been able to gather your "real world experience" is based
> in
>> the pattern of busted drives you see coming in from others. There are so
>> many ways that that data could be skewed that a student in a college
>> level statistics course could get a term paper out of it.
>
> You want "real world experience"? Query large data centers (especially
> banks and insurance companies), where meeting service level objectives
> determine _careers_ , that have _thousands_ of servers with truly
> "mission-critical" applications, and see how many are running IDE drives.

For _your_ term paper, assume that IDE drives are ten times as reliable as
SCSI drives and then calculate the effect on service level objectives of
using those drives. Be sure to consider _all_ differences between SCSI and
IDE. I think you will find that the reliability of individual drives is
less significant than many other factors.

These matters are not as simple as "SCSI is better" or "IDE is better". In
ten years it will be interesting to see what percentage of those data
centers have changed over to SATA.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> >> Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and
> > numerous
> >> with SCSI, and I don't notice either (a) any systematic difference in
the
> >> reliability of the drives or (b) that there is any single drive that is
> >> more reliable at preserving data integrity than any mirrored pair or
> >> array with parity.
> >
> > This is your anecdotal experience, or _opinion_, which, along with mine,
> > doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things when discussing a
> > topic as broad as "reliablity".
>
> That which can be calculated is not an opinion. The probability of both

You spoke of no calculations in the above paragraph.

> drives in a mirrored pair failing simultaneously vs a single drive failing
> can be calculated. You have to make rather unrealistic assumptions about
> the difference in reliability between the drives before you get a number
> that favors the single drive.

I made no argument, on one side or the other, about the "reliability" of
SCSI vs. IDE. It's like arguing about what is the "best" ______ (fill in the
blank). There is no correct answer. What is "best" or more "reliable" for
_me_ isn't necessarily the same for _you_.

I merely pointed out that you were doing the same thing as you were accusing
Odie of... expressing _your_ opinion based on _your_ anecdotal experience.

> >> As for the meaning of "subjective", if all you have is an opinion then
> >> you really shouldn't pontificate quite so much about drive reliability.
> >
> > Isn't that what you just did, in the first above paragraph?
>
> Nope. I'm not the one making unqualified claims like "SCSI is infinitely
> more reliable than IDE". I stated that that was in my experience, I did
> not say absolutely that anything was infinitely better than anything else.
> > You want "real world experience"? Query large data centers (especially
> > banks and insurance companies), where meeting service level objectives
> > determine _careers_ , that have _thousands_ of servers with truly
> > "mission-critical" applications, and see how many are running IDE
drives.
>
> For _your_ term paper, assume that IDE drives are ten times as reliable as

I'm over thirty years downrange from a college term paper.

> SCSI drives and then calculate the effect on service level objectives of
> using those drives. Be sure to consider _all_ differences between SCSI
and
> IDE. I think you will find that the reliability of individual drives is
> less significant than many other factors.

But it wouldn't change the fact that the industries that live and die by
_reliability_, banks and insurance companies, do _not_ use IDE drives in
their data center servers. That's a fact, that I know, from personal
experience. Not my opinion, but a _fact_. B of A, Wachovia, State Farm,
Citibank, JP Morgan, Cap One, the Federal Reserve, SunTrust, the list goes
on and on. If IT managers felt they could save 5% of their cap ex by
switching to IDE drives and have the same reliability _and_ performance,
they'd do it... in a heartbeat.

> These matters are not as simple as "SCSI is better" or "IDE is better".
In

Neither is "better". But the old generalization, IDE for the desktop, SCSI
for the server, is still basically true today.

> ten years it will be interesting to see what percentage of those data
> centers have changed over to SATA.

In ten years, SATA will be ancient technology.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

chrisv wrote:

>> And you're just figuring this out? I have been saying this for
>> years.
>
> What trolls like you say doesn't carry much weight, "Rita".

LOL! How's that browser doing?


Rita

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4226BA63.A14C2098@hotmail.com...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> Nope, I gave up on SCSI a long time ago now.

>>>> Modern IDE drives are much better value

>>> This is subjective.

>> Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
>> purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.

> Hence my use of the word "subjective."

Nope, thats not what the word subjective means.

>>>> and are much quieter usually.

>>> I agree.

>>> However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.

>>> SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.

>> That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
>> much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.

> First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives)
> are going to be more reliable than a single SCSI drive.

More fool you.

> Secondly, there is no way that two mirrored IDE drives are
> going to be more reliable than two mirrored SCSI drives.

The short story is that both configs are reliable enough
and the IDE pair will be much cheaper and much quieter.

>>> Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.

>> You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.

> More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?

> I doubt it.

See above.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > These matters are not as simple as "SCSI is better" or "IDE is better".
> In
>
> Neither is "better". But the old generalization, IDE for the desktop, SCSI
> for the server, is still basically true today.
>
> > ten years it will be interesting to see what percentage of those data
> > centers have changed over to SATA.
>
> In ten years, SATA will be ancient technology.
>
No, SATA will be still around.
IDE introduced by Imprimis (CDC) in 1985 is still with us today.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:

> No, SATA will be still around.
> IDE introduced by Imprimis (CDC) in 1985 is still with us today.

You can look at SATA as nothing more than a venereal wart on technology.
It'll keep coming back like any other STD. SATA will never be taken
seriously in anything other than gaming systems.


Rita

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Chuck U. Farley wrote:

>> >> Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and
>> > numerous
>> >> with SCSI, and I don't notice either (a) any systematic difference in
> the
>> >> reliability of the drives or (b) that there is any single drive that
>> >> is more reliable at preserving data integrity than any mirrored pair
>> >> or array with parity.
>> >
>> > This is your anecdotal experience, or _opinion_, which, along with
>> > mine, doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things when
>> > discussing a topic as broad as "reliablity".
>>
>> That which can be calculated is not an opinion. The probability of both
>
> You spoke of no calculations in the above paragraph.

Try running the numbers yourself, I doubt you'd believe mine anyway.
>
>> drives in a mirrored pair failing simultaneously vs a single drive
>> failing
>> can be calculated. You have to make rather unrealistic assumptions about
>> the difference in reliability between the drives before you get a number
>> that favors the single drive.
>
> I made no argument, on one side or the other, about the "reliability" of
> SCSI vs. IDE. It's like arguing about what is the "best" ______ (fill in
> the blank). There is no correct answer. What is "best" or more "reliable"
> for _me_ isn't necessarily the same for _you_.

Data loss is data loss. The probability of data loss is not subjective.

> I merely pointed out that you were doing the same thing as you were
> accusing Odie of... expressing _your_ opinion based on _your_ anecdotal
> experience.

Which I stated clearly that I was doing, so why do you have a problem with
it?

>> >> As for the meaning of "subjective", if all you have is an opinion then
>> >> you really shouldn't pontificate quite so much about drive
>> >> reliability.
>> >
>> > Isn't that what you just did, in the first above paragraph?
>>
>> Nope. I'm not the one making unqualified claims like "SCSI is infinitely
>> more reliable than IDE". I stated that that was in my experience, I did
>> not say absolutely that anything was infinitely better than anything
>> else.
>> > You want "real world experience"? Query large data centers (especially
>> > banks and insurance companies), where meeting service level objectives
>> > determine _careers_ , that have _thousands_ of servers with truly
>> > "mission-critical" applications, and see how many are running IDE
> drives.
>>
>> For _your_ term paper, assume that IDE drives are ten times as reliable
>> as
>
> I'm over thirty years downrange from a college term paper.

Try it anyway. You might find the results instructive. You might also
consider getting a humor transplant.

>> SCSI drives and then calculate the effect on service level objectives of
>> using those drives. Be sure to consider _all_ differences between SCSI
> and
>> IDE. I think you will find that the reliability of individual drives is
>> less significant than many other factors.
>
> But it wouldn't change the fact that the industries that live and die by
> _reliability_, banks and insurance companies, do _not_ use IDE drives in
> their data center servers.

What is at issue is not the fact that they use such drives, but the reason.
You don't seem to be willing to even consider the possibility that there
might be reasons unrelated to the reliability of individual drives.

> That's a fact, that I know, from personal
> experience. Not my opinion, but a _fact_. B of A, Wachovia, State Farm,
> Citibank, JP Morgan, Cap One, the Federal Reserve, SunTrust, the list goes
> on and on.

So what? Nobody has disputed this.

> If IT managers felt they could save 5% of their cap ex by
> switching to IDE drives and have the same reliability _and_ performance,
> they'd do it... in a heartbeat.

So? Do the exercise instead of acting like a broken record.

>> These matters are not as simple as "SCSI is better" or "IDE is better".
> In
>
> Neither is "better". But the old generalization, IDE for the desktop, SCSI
> for the server, is still basically true today.

So what? IDE is obsolescent anyway.

>> ten years it will be interesting to see what percentage of those data
>> centers have changed over to SATA.
>
> In ten years, SATA will be ancient technology.

SCSI is already far older than SATA will be in ten years. So what?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4226E4E1.97639683@hotmail.com...
> J. Clarke wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

> I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of
> day-to-dayexperience of this topic. In real life, of course.

You're wrong, again.

> Of course, you are totally missing the meaning of "subjective."

Nope, you are. Try a dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>>> And you're just figuring this out? I have been saying this for
>>> years.
>>
>> What trolls like you say doesn't carry much weight, "Rita".
>
>LOL! How's that browser doing?

Typical nonsensical remark from the "Rita" troll.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> >> Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
> >> purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.
> >>
> >> That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
> >> much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.
> >
> > First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives) are going to
> > be more reliable than a single SCSI drive. Secondly, there is no way
> > that two mirrored IDE drives are going to be more reliable than two
> > mirrored SCSI drives.
>
> Define "reliable". Two drives are not as reliable as one drive in the sense
> of probability of needing repair. A mirrored pair of IDE drives will be
> vastly more reliable than one SCSI drive in terms of probability of data
> loss however.
> >
> >> You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.
> >
> > More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?
>
> More reliable than a SCSI system which costs the same.
>
> If you think that a single SCSI drive is preferable in terms of preservation
> of data to mirrored IDE drives, you need to start looking at the numbers
> instead of the lining of your hat.
>
> The simple fact is that SCSI is overpriced for what it delivers for all but
> a few specialized applications.

In what applications are SCSI drives better?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Frank W. wrote:

>> >> Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
>> >> purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.
>> >>
>> >> That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
>> >> much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.
>> >
>> > First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives) are going to
>> > be more reliable than a single SCSI drive. Secondly, there is no way
>> > that two mirrored IDE drives are going to be more reliable than two
>> > mirrored SCSI drives.
>>
>> Define "reliable". Two drives are not as reliable as one drive in the
>> sense
>> of probability of needing repair. A mirrored pair of IDE drives will be
>> vastly more reliable than one SCSI drive in terms of probability of data
>> loss however.
>> >
>> >> You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.
>> >
>> > More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?
>>
>> More reliable than a SCSI system which costs the same.
>>
>> If you think that a single SCSI drive is preferable in terms of
>> preservation of data to mirrored IDE drives, you need to start looking at
>> the numbers instead of the lining of your hat.
>>
>> The simple fact is that SCSI is overpriced for what it delivers for all
>> but a few specialized applications.
>
> In what applications are SCSI drives better?

If the price was the same then pretty much across the board, but the price
is not the same. Meanwhile, the fastest SCSI drives are still faster, SCSI
allows much longer cables, and solutions that allow one to attach more than
a dozen or so drives to a single machine cost a good deal more than
solutions that allow a dozen or more SCSI drives to be attached--whether
the cost of the controller balances the cost of the drives I'm not sure.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Peter wrote:

>> No, SATA will be still around.
>> IDE introduced by Imprimis (CDC) in 1985 is still with us today.

> You can look at SATA as nothing more than a venereal wart on technology.
> It'll keep coming back like any other STD. SATA will never be taken
> seriously in anything other than gaming systems.

Not true. We have TB's of research data on SATA. And more on ATA.
Of course most is RAID5 and there is an additional copy on a tape robot.

But ATA/SATA is a cheap way to get lots of reasonably fast storage
if funds are limited. You need to know what you are doing, and I
found that regular surface checks and monitoring is needed, but
it does work.

In addition putting 8 SATA HDDs into a server case if far easier
than putting 8 ATA disks in there. SATA has clear advantages.
True, it still has problems because it is relatively new, but
those will go away.

Also in desktop systems having a pair of (S)ATA drives in RAID1
is more reliable and still cheaper than one high-quality
SCSI disk. I have made very good experiences with that.

Personally I see SCSI as solution for very high speeds and
places where you can only mount one disk or it is difficult
to replace a failed disk. Also where there is nobody available
that can follow the developments and can select good quality
(S)ATA disks. And of course if money is not an issue.

Bottom line: High quality is good, but if you can get medium
quality and redundancy that is even better. After all the 'I'
in RAID stands for 'inexpensive'.

Arno

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno Wagner wrote:

> Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>
>>> No, SATA will be still around.
>>> IDE introduced by Imprimis (CDC) in 1985 is still with us today.
>
>> You can look at SATA as nothing more than a venereal wart on technology.
>> It'll keep coming back like any other STD. SATA will never be taken
>> seriously in anything other than gaming systems.
>
> Not true. We have TB's of research data on SATA. And more on ATA.
> Of course most is RAID5 and there is an additional copy on a tape robot.
>
> But ATA/SATA is a cheap way to get lots of reasonably fast storage
> if funds are limited. You need to know what you are doing, and I
> found that regular surface checks and monitoring is needed, but
> it does work.
>
> In addition putting 8 SATA HDDs into a server case if far easier
> than putting 8 ATA disks in there. SATA has clear advantages.
> True, it still has problems because it is relatively new, but
> those will go away.
>
> Also in desktop systems having a pair of (S)ATA drives in RAID1
> is more reliable and still cheaper than one high-quality
> SCSI disk. I have made very good experiences with that.
>
> Personally I see SCSI as solution for very high speeds and
> places where you can only mount one disk or it is difficult
> to replace a failed disk. Also where there is nobody available
> that can follow the developments and can select good quality
> (S)ATA disks. And of course if money is not an issue.
>
> Bottom line: High quality is good, but if you can get medium
> quality and redundancy that is even better. After all the 'I'
> in RAID stands for 'inexpensive'.

It seems to me that from the viewpoint of an administrator for a large site
there were three problems with parallel ATA that had nothing to do with the
reliability of the drives--the first was that using them for hot-swap was
running them out of specification and the second was that there was not a
decent RAID controller from an established manufacturer (3ware was and is
good but they only support a few operating systems and who's ever heard of
them?) and the third was that there was no enterprise-quality NAS that
would accept PATA drives.

SATA addressed the first issue in the spec--any SATA device that doesn't
support hot-swap is out of spec--and there _are_ full-featured RAID
controllers available for SATA from LSI Logic (their RAID controller
operatin is the merger of Mylex, which was at one time an IBM subsidiary,
and AMI, which used to be their arch-rival) and as part of the Intel server
building blocks, in addition to Tekram (supports RAID6--don't know of any
SCSI RAID controllers that do that), Adaptec, and the various consumer
manufacturers, some of whom are slowly developing their line in a direction
that might have it competitive with LSI and Intel some day, so the second
has been addressed, and EMC, Sun, and several others have fibre-channel
arrays that take SATA drives, addressing the third.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

> Arno

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)