SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
Bill Moran
wmoran at collaborativefusion.com
Thu Sep 14 08:46:10 PDT 2006
In response to Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet at esiee.fr>:
> Gerard Seibert wrote:
> > Frank Bonnet wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >> I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$
> >
> > Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with
> > SATA is not acceptable? Just curious.
>
> Because I want it
Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued
ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches?
Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still
seems as if:
a) The performance is still better
b) The reliability is still better
But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also
seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16
devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but
if you need that many spindles, you need them!
--
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list