On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:46, Jesse Molina wrote:
That is kind of funny, in my experience I have found that SCSI drives have
a much higher death rate than IDE drives, by far.
I had a similar experience years ago. I was working for a company where the
owner was greatly impressed by SCSI. I had to
Well, my experience instead is that scsi is rock solid compared to ide
as long as you choose drives with same rotational speed etc. If you get
those high rpm drives you have to be very careful with cooling. I try
always to get 7200rpm drives and also stay away from certain brands, and
then I
. As for cooling... those
1rpm drives sure do run hot, so cooling is of utmost importance.
- Original Message -
From: Roger Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: RAID Hard disk
Not to start a holy war, but there are real reasons to use SCSI.
The big ones are
Much larger MTBF, faster access times due to higher spindle speeds, better
bus management (eg 2 drives can perform tasks at once unlike IDE), Hot
Swapable (This is HUGE) and more cache on the drive.
I'll stop now
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:26, Dave Watkins wrote:
Not to start a holy war, but there are real reasons to use SCSI.
The big ones are
Much larger MTBF,
Mean Time Between Failures is not such a big deal when you run RAID. As long
as you don't have two drives fail at the same time. Cheaper IDE
lanner, Snow
# Network Engineer Maximum Charisma Studios Inc.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.303.432.0286
# end of sig
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:27 PM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RAID Hard
Message-
From: Dave Watkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:27 PM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RAID Hard disk performance
Not to start a holy war, but there are real reasons to use SCSI.
The big ones are
Much larger MTBF, faster access times
God.. this is turning into a war... I think this will be my last post on
the subject
When running RAID MTBF is not such a big deal... Unless you have a several
racks of servers in 2U cases... 40-50 servers.. Would you rather drop 1
drive every month or 1 drive every year?? In a single machine
quote who=Russell Coker
RAID-5 is another issue though. But then you have to consider that Linux
software RAID kills the performance of most hardware RAID controllers. Run
an Athlon 800 with two IDE drives in RAID-1 and expect 2-4 times the
performance for bulk IO that an entry level
On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:33, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Russell Coker
RAID-5 is another issue though. But then you have to consider that Linux
software RAID kills the performance of most hardware RAID controllers.
Run an Athlon 800 with two IDE drives in RAID-1 and expect 2-4 times the
quote who=Russell Coker
There's a number of guides that tell you about hdparm and what DMA is, but if
you already know that stuff then there's little good documentation.
Oh bum. :)
Then on the rare occasions that I do meet people who know this stuff
reasonably well they seem to spend all
quote who=Russell Coker
RAID-5 is another issue though. But then you have to consider that Linux
software RAID kills the performance of most hardware RAID controllers. Run
an Athlon 800 with two IDE drives in RAID-1 and expect 2-4 times the
performance for bulk IO that an entry level
On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:33, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Russell Coker
RAID-5 is another issue though. But then you have to consider that Linux
software RAID kills the performance of most hardware RAID controllers.
Run an Athlon 800 with two IDE drives in RAID-1 and expect 2-4 times the
quote who=Russell Coker
There's a number of guides that tell you about hdparm and what DMA is, but if
you already know that stuff then there's little good documentation.
Oh bum. :)
Then on the rare occasions that I do meet people who know this stuff
reasonably well they seem to spend all
14 matches
Mail list logo
