Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:46:08 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> To: Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet@esiee.fr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server) Message-ID: <20060914114608.e130c6a0.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <4509768C.5030602@esiee.fr> References: <45096C88.4030203@esiee.fr> <20060914111843.91BC.GERARD@seibercom.net> <4509768C.5030602@esiee.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In response to Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet@esiee.fr>: > Gerard Seibert wrote: > > Frank Bonnet wrote: > > > > [...] > >> I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ > > > > Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with > > SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. > > Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060914114608.e130c6a0.wmoran>