Hitachi vs Seagate: Opinions wanted

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:11:44 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy at hub.org> wrote:

> 
> I've always used Seagate or Quantum drives in my servers ... with the 
> recent thought about switching to Dual-Athlon servers, from Intel, and the 
> caveats about both heat and power that I've had, its been recommended 
> switching to Hitachi drives from the usual Seagate ... also, apparently 
> the failure rates are higher on the Seagate's are much higher then the 
> Hitachi ...
> 
> Since I can't say I've ever had a complaint (other then the U320 firmware 
> fiasco that Seagate did fix), I'm wondering if there is that much of a 
> difference with the Hitachi's to warrant the extra ~$50/drive ... ?

I can say nothing about Hitachi, but with Seagate's IDEs I've had
troubles on 5.x (the last one last night). It's seems to be something
about ATA timings; the results are file systems completely messed-up
after 1 of 2 reboots; also it depends on firmware revision of the HDD in
question and FreeBSD version (e.g. I've used one 40G HDD as my boot disk
for a few months on 5.0, but now it ain't working with 5.2.1).

But with the SCSI Seagates  I've had no problems, always worked well,
even in some warm places.


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"