Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:43:48 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> To: Tom <tom@sdf.com> Cc: Marty Gordon <KILLSPAM%mlghome@home.com>, Wee Teck Ng <weeteck@eecs.umich.edu>, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: very slow scsi performance Message-ID: <199802182146.OAA25726@pluto.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:12:19 PST." <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980218090826.19271C-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Without a doubt, IBM. > > I have some doubts about that. Seagate Barracuda work really well >too. 20 drives in 24x7 so far, and no failures. Many recent Seagate drives are okay, but when I have the choice, I pick IBM over Seagate. This has as much to do with reliability as with how well behaved SCSI protocol wise, the IBM drives are. Their firmware is rock solid and their reliability numbers leave Seagate in the dust. Granted, Pluto has been using mostly Seagate drives in it's Video DDR products for some time now, but there has always been the desire to use IBM instead. Now that IBM is making a strong move to better support the standard retail channel and will guarantee drive allocation to other than IBM internal customers (IBM is it's own biggest customer when it comes to storage products), it looks like this will be possible. The last time I saw the Seagate rep, he was pissing his pants over IBM. 8-) -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802182146.OAA25726>