Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:35:02 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hitachi vs Seagate: Opinions wanted Message-ID: <20040630143502.7677cca1@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> In-Reply-To: <20040629150632.J74139@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20040629150632.J74139@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:11:44 -0300 (ADT) "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@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"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040630143502.7677cca1>