Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 08:40:34 -0400 From: Drew Derbyshire <ahd@kew.com> To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Build quality for the mass market (was: lousy disk perf. under cpu load) Message-ID: <3413F242.BDBA1225@kew.com> References: <199709080623.XAA10617@MindBender.serv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As our topic drifts off to sea, moving this to -CHAT (I hope) Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote: > My final note is that over the last four years or so, I have had more > (E)IDE drives fail (3) than SCSI drives (1) in my own systems. And I > have owned more SCSI drives (11) than (E)IDE drives (5). Holding the > drives in my hand, I can tell the difference in build quality. My > experience is that there truly is a difference in the quality of > components that go into each kind of drive. If they ever build SCSI for the mass market, the quality would drop as well. The example (I can't say proof) is ATAPI CD-ROM drives. I've had a NEC Multispin (2x) external SCSI for four years, it's still doing service downstairs on one of my servers. After they drop the big one, the only things to survive will be the cockroaches and that drive. I don't expect the NEC IDE CD-ROM drive shipped as part of my NEC system to survive, I've already lost three off a sister system in just over a year. Like Michael, I can just look and heft the drives and see the differences. One can even see the difference between cheap $99 2x internal drives of 1995 vintage and the 6x drives of today -- junk, all of newer ones, as builders compete on price. So it's not the interface which makes EIDE drives fail, it's quantity pricing driving down quality. -ahd- -- Internet: ahd@kew.com Voice: 617-279-9810 How do you make Windows faster? Throw it harder!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3413F242.BDBA1225>