From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 16 18:30:51 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A2C16A417 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:30:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from timo.schoeler@riscworks.net) Received: from relay.riscworks.net (v32231.1blu.de [88.84.154.71]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B46A13C45D for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:30:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from timo.schoeler@riscworks.net) Received: from ament.riscworks.net (unknown [92.227.199.97]) by relay.riscworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6022B136E0006; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:30:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from zoidberg.riscworks.net (zoidberg [192.168.100.100]) by ament.riscworks.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EA8DC9C13F; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:30:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:30:53 +0100 From: Timo Schoeler To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= Message-Id: <20080216193053.1b715c2b.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> In-Reply-To: <52039.192.168.1.2.1203184958.squirrel@webmail.alpha-tierchen.de> References: <86r6fdx0tf.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080216113721.GA55702@voi.aagh.net> <86tzk8vnz9.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080216182017.734f619c.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <52039.192.168.1.2.1203184958.squirrel@webmail.alpha-tierchen.de> Organization: RISCworks EnvironTech X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.8; amd64-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.0-RC2 Available X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:30:51 -0000 Thus Bj=F6rn K=F6nig spake Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:02:38 +0100 (CET): > Timo Schoeler wrote: > > Thus Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav spake Sat, 16 Feb 2008 > > 17:56:58 +0100: > >> Don't blame me for your decision to use the most expensive type of > >> storage available, especially when it has been conclusively shown > >> that expensive server-grade disks are no more reliable than cheap > >> consumer- grade disks. > > > > Hm. During the last ten years I for myself installed about 1,200 > > SCSI HDs at customers (plus those that were installed by EMC in > > storage systems at customers' sites) and at least thrice the amount > > IDE/SATA HDs. > > > > There were hundreds (!) of defects of the consumer grade IDE/SATA > > HDs, beautifully spreading over the whole spectrum of brands and > > models used. > > > > Number of SCSI drives dead: Nine. > > > > I tend to believe there *is* a reason for companies to build > > SCSI/SAS-only products, be it 'Workstations', Workstations, Servers > > or storage systems. >=20 > I think the interface is not responsible for the reliability of the > hard disk drive. Indeed, not the interface itself. But the ball bearings (if any, more and more use liquid technology) are of much better quality. Well, one pays a premium for that (not only for that), no question. (And, besides that, SCSI always had nice features as TCQ etc that now appear in SATA land...) > There are SATA drives and controllers out there that > are supposed to be as reliable as SCSI/SAS drives and controllers. =20 The 'server grade' SATA drives appeared during the last years (like WD's 'RAID Edition'); before that, IDE/SATA was just plain 'consumer grade' stuff. In fact, most IDE/SATA drives were never specified to run 24/7, in contrast to SCSI (server) HDs. > Bj=F6rn Timo