To me the question of reliability is that of the drive, not the interface. I cannot see SATA itself being any more or less reliable than ATA drives. I think certain controllers will accept a new drive that has similar characteristics as long as the replacement drive is larger than the lost drive.
I think the low capacity is a recognition that more performance for the price is more desirable than more capacity with the target market of this drive. After all, you don't see many 180GB SCSI drives, performance is more a concern than capacity (you can get the capacity from RAID anyway. Regards, Mike Hillyer www.vbmysql.com > A significant question remains for SATA: basic drive > reliability. Related > to that is length of time drive will remain available. A > dirty secret of > RAID is that when a drive goes it must be replaced you must replace it > with the same drive (please..please tell me I'm wrong). So, > unless you > have a spare in the back you will end up replacing 3 drives > (assuming Raid > 5). That may be why the WD model has such low capacity > compared with the > normal IDE drives. > > Just my 2 cents worth. > > William R. Mussatto, Senior Systems Engineer > Ph. 909-920-9154 ext. 27 > FAX. 909-608-7061 > > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
