Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:21:54 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> Cc: Wee Teck Ng <weeteck@eecs.umich.edu>, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: very slow scsi performance Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980218141739.20019A-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <199802182146.OAA25726@pluto.plutotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > >> 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. Didn't the IBM DCAS or DORS drive have some firmware bugs in regards to tags? Are you referrring to the newer IBM Ultrastar line? In fact, I just found a message from a DCAS sent to a freebsd list today, that has to disable disconnection to get reliable operation with his 2940 and his DCAS drive. I can't verify that, but I have few problems with 11 Seagate drives hung off a 3940UW. The ahc driver freezes up the system every 6 weeks of heavy 24x7 i/o though. Tom 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?Pine.BSF.3.95q.980218141739.20019A-100000>