Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:30:04 -0400 From: David Sze <dsze@alumni.uwaterloo.ca> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hitachi vs Seagate: Opinions wanted Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20040630092141.02c54ec0@mail.distrust.net> 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
At 03:11 PM 29/06/2004 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote this to All: >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 ... ? > >The server we are putting together will be a 2U chassis, with 6 U320 >drives in it ... either hitachi or seagate ... If you will be using a motherboard with an LSI Logic chipset (mpt driver under FreeBSD), definitely do _not_ get Hitachi/IBM drives. There's a weird interaction that causes the OS not to boot if there is more than one Hitachi drive attached to an mpt controller. A single drive works fine.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.1.2.0.2.20040630092141.02c54ec0>