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
--- Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Derek Ragona wrote:
SATA is still quite limited. To go beyond those limits use SAS,
but SAS costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology.
Get a 12 or 16 or 24 port Areca card and have a few hot spares and
you will see SATA fly for less money than
Bill Moran wrote:
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
