Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:50:44AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>>> difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA > >>>> discs, that might have been bad luck. > >>> Probably bad luck. I find that SCSI is very reliable, but I don't find > >>> it any more reliable than SATA. That is assuming correct ventilation > >>> etc... > >> Perhaps a basic question - but why does the interface matter? :-) > >> > >> I find the subject interesting to read about - but I am having trouble > >> understanding why SATAII is technically superior or inferior to SCSI as > >> an interface, in any place that counts. > > > > You should probably read this to learn the difference between desktop > > and enterprise-level drives: > > > > > > http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf > > Problem is :), you can purchase SATA Enterprise Drives.
Right --- the point is not the interface, but whether the drive is built for reliability or to hit a low price point. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
