On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 11:39 -0700, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote: > > At home, for my own systems, I have nothing but EIDE and SATA, > because of price concerns. At work, even though we're a university, > nothing that does anything important runs anything less than 10krpm > U320 SCSI drives. Most of the "business" systems run 15krpm U320 > SCSI drives or 15krpm FC drives. >
I prefer SCSI for all my systems at home because most of the data I have I value probably more than the usual home user (not counting my wife's and kids computers). One reason I think is because most of my computers are also used for development and they all have code for something or another on them. I also started using SCSI several years ago when I was tired of the CPU cycles that IDE and even faster ATA drives that support fast UDMA modes sucked up. Even when playing games on my game machine, I could see a huge difference. Some games would simply lock up when using ATA drives, others would just slow down so much I could go get a bite of food before the next part of a level was loaded and ready to play. The drawback is now I can't afford to buy new drives or add additional drives to my systems. The upside is I haven't had a SCSI drive fail in years (I do have one suspect drive, but I suspect it's not actually the drive that's failed, but something else). I've been through several IDE and ATA drives in the same time frame in the same systems. PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
