Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:05:32 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mixing IDE and SATA hard drives on a FreeBSD system Message-ID: <4279EFEC.90009@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <42795B04.3050206@chuckr.org> References: <200505041522.25722.algould@datawok.com> <20050504222456.GA74932@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> <42795B04.3050206@chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey wrote:
> I don't know why it's true... I can state that I've had 3 of them so
> far, and had troubles with 2, and google is chock full of reports.
> Further, the info about them being the same as their IDE brethren
> isn't true, at least, the access rate specifications are higher for
> SATA drives, in general, as compared to IDE. Least they were the last
> time I checked, maybe it's changed inthe last 6 months.
>
> OTOH, when I first bought mine, I was comparing in my mind with SCSI,
> not IDE, maybe they *do* compare equally with IDE, is IDE that bad?
> Certainly, SATA is less reliable thant he scsi drives.
Deskstar T7K250
Highlights
Capacity - 250GB and 160GB
Rotational Speed - 7200 RPM
*** Interface standard - SATA II 3.0Gb/s (Serial) and ATA Ultra 133
(Parallel)
ATA-7 streaming feature set
Average seek time - 8.5 ms
Same drive, different interface. This has been the case as long as I've
been checking out specs. If your drives are that bad, try another
manufacturer. Are IDE drives more unreliable? They cost significantly
less, spin at lower speeds are are and are a mass-market item. Some of
the cost difference is interface complexity, the rest, I'm sure, is that
SCSIs tend to manufactured to higher tolerances. Ask owners of an IBM
Deskstar 75 how reliable an IDE drive is :-) (Then duck).
--Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4279EFEC.90009>