[TriLUG] SCSI vs. SATA in theory
jason at cerient.net
Thu Feb 10 14:44:10 EST 2005
sata drives are not substantially different from traditional ide drives,
they just have a different controller and interface. the only
exception that i know of are the wd raptors which are aimed at the
enterprise market and cost about the same as scsi.
therefore, if reliability is truly a concern and you want to do the job
right, then you really only have one option - scsi. and since that
isn't 100% foolproof, you still need backup of some sort. use sata/ide
for that purpose - dense, cheap, and if it fails you haven't lost
anything. but if reliability is the goal, stick with scsi.
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:32, Greg Brown wrote:
> Do mean time between failure rates between SCSI and SATA differ
> greatly in the field? Most IDE drives seem to live 3-5 years under
> moderate use and I'm fairly certain that SCSI can go much further
> then that, but what about SATA? I have to spec out my home server
> that I want to build once the wife's bonus arrives and I'm thinking
> about drives. I have lots of OLD data that I could probably part
> with (old laptop files from companies I no longer work for, etc) but
> I don't want to - you never know when those five year old Lucent
> files might come in handy!
> I've been looking towards SATA for the large-volume storage and
> thinking about SCSI for my heavily used partitions (web, database,
> Does adding a SCSI drive just for high duty-cycle partitions rally
> matter? Can I get away with just having everything on one, big SATA
> drive? I normally only get one chance over five years to build a
> really nice server, so I want to get this right.
More information about the TriLUG