SATA is still quite limited. To go beyond those limits use SAS, but SAS
costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology.
-Derek
At 10:46 AM 9/14/2006, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Frank Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
