On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Jon Elson via cctech <cctech@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 08:29 AM, allison via cctech wrote: > >> >> >> It was price... ATA-IDE was cheaper and PC industry was working hard to >> push the price down. >> SCSI always remained more costly. >> >> Yes. I think there were royalties to pay for a true SCSI drive. Anyway, > there was a VERY significant price > difference between early IDE and SCSI drives. Several hundred $ for a > similar capacity drive. > The difference has persisted to this day. SCSI tags are deeper than NCQ for ATA. The error reporting from SCSI is much richer than you get from ATA. In general, reliability is better for SAS drives than for SATA drives, and the performance variations you see in SATA have a higher magnitude than the SAS drives. ATA was always meant to get bits to the user at a lower cost w/o solving all the hard problems SCSI tried to solve. Warner
