On 8/16/06, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 12:55 AM 8/17/2006 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > > We are not stuck on SATA. The whole data directory has ~ 80GB of data > > > so PATA would work just as well. > > > >I fear you missed the point. This is hardly about SATA vs. PATA, > >but rather about ATA vs. SCSI. > > Au contraire - the argument is 'RAID', which, by definition, is _ _ > *Inexpensive* Disks.
AT the time RAID was first discussed, SCSI drives _WERE_ the inexpensive disks. IME, SCSI drives are no more reliable than SATA or IDE. I have had two > drive failures in SCSI arrays in one year, and I have had SATA arrays > running 24/7 for five years with no problem whatsoever. I was speaking with a hard drive manufacturing engineer a couple of years back. He told me that scsi disks were better from a reliability point of view. On ATA disks, disks that are OEM'ed (to tier 1 manufacturers) were better than the stuff you can buy online. The reason was because they run more tests on them prior shipping to the oems.
