Date: 29 Oct 2002 01:51:59 +0000 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Kenneth Culver <culverk@yumyumyum.org> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org>, "Wilkinson,Alex" <Alex.Wilkinson@dsto.defence.gov.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [hardware] Tagged Command Queuing or Larger Cache ? Message-ID: <1035856320.77698.49.camel@chowder.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20021028204130.D59907-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org> References: <20021028204130.D59907-100000@alpha.yumyumyum.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 01:42, Kenneth Culver wrote: > I'd probably steer clear of the western digital drives as well. Yes the > 8MB cache that some of them have DOES make a difference, but from personal > experience, the drives themselves don't last that long. So in short, what > good is a fast hard-drive if it's just going to break faster too? I haven't had any trouble with the WDxxxBB drives - the WDxxxAA drives are pretty unreliable though. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1035856320.77698.49.camel>