[Gllug] SCSI more reliable than Maxline PlusII?

[Chris Bell]

On Fri 10 Sep, John Winters wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 08:49, Chris Bell wrote:
> > On Fri 10 Sep, Garry Heaton wrote:
> > > 
> > > Disregarding read/write speed and given a decent hardware RAID card, are
> > > SCSI disks mechanically more reliable than the best SATA disks? An assistant
> > > at GND (www.gnd.com) suggested Maxtor's Maxline PlusII disks are
> > > mechanically a fair match for SCSI.
> > > 
> > > Garry
> > > 
> >    I heard that a disadvantage of IDE was that master and slave received the
> > same address commands. This could cause multiple discs to search for every
> > address, causing excessive mechanical wear.
> 
> For a RAID implementation using IDE disks I would expect each disk to
> have its own controller.  If you put to RAIDed drives on the same
> controller, performance goes out the window and the failure of one
> controller kills 2 drives which would not be nice.
> 
> John
> 
   Agreed, the historic argument was about IDE v SCSI, and I was trying to
think of reasons why SCSI should have a higher original reputation. This
could be because IDE drives may thrash around more under the same
circumstances. I would hope that SATA drives, with only one per cable by
design, would not be worked harder than SCSI, so that would not be a valid
reason for them to fail early. I would expect the fibre connected drives to
be hammered most during normal use, so it may be worth comparing specs
between fibre, SCSI, and IDE drives.

-- 
Chris Bell

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug