[TriLUG] SCSI vs. ATA article

[Chris Bullock]

Jay Barrett wrote:

>Jeremy,
>
>In my simple mind Seagate's marketing team is grasping for straws to justify
>the higher cost, hence higher price for SCSI.  The fact of the matter is
>that SCSI is predominantly used in servers and high-end workstation and
>these users are use to paying a premium.  Their primary objective is to slow
>down the migration to lower margin products.  Scary to think that the MTBF
>for ALL drives is about 10 years now, but I would recommend replacing them
>when you cycle your systems.
>
>With serial ATA now available (loosely used term) on the market and serial
>SCSI on the horizon it will be interesting to see if they continue with the
>same story line.
>
>I use both ATA and SCSI drives in my systems and servers, but have been
>moving towards ATA with 3Ware controllers.  Now I'm looking forward towards
>2.5" 10K serial ATA drives and being able to fit about 30 of them in a
>single 2U chassis. Given the fact that they use less power the give off less
>heat thus total reliability will be higher thus I can keep my mp3 files
>on-line longer (sorry just had to add that).
>
We have serveral servers  at our office, running ATA and SCSI.  We 
deployed a new application that required 4 servers, 2 running RAID SCSI 
and 2 running RAID IDE.  We have had no problems at all with the SCSI 
devices but in 6 months we have replaced 8 IDE drives and have 2 more 
failing now.  They are running 3Ware controllers.  So in my opinion, if 
you can spare the extra money, go with SCSI.

>
>BTW I'm not knocking Seagate just their ruse, I actually prefer Seagate and
>IBM drives to the other folks.  My 2 cents worth.
>
>Jay
>
>
>
>
>  
>