If the budget permits, SCSI has a longer anticipated lifetime from the manufacturers than does SATA. But yet, SATA drives are so much less expensive that several can be replaced within the lifetime of a single SCSI on a $/byte argument. What it ultimately boils down to is how they are in use. If it is very easy to replace a drive that has been in use with a new one after a failure, then SATA would be a good idea. If, however, the system recovery time is a factor, then stick with SCSI. Also note: SCSI is still MUCH faster than even SATA II (or is it III now?). The speed rates published most often for SATA are burst rates. The rates published for SCSI are sustained throughput. On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 21:54 -0800, Kevin Haugh wrote: > I'm configuring a k12ltsp server to handle 35 clients. My instincts > tell me to stick with SCSI drives. However, faster SATA drives seem > to be catching up. Any recommendations? > > > Thanks! > > > > > ******************** > > Kevin Haugh, Teacher/Asst. Football Coach > > Redlands High School > > Redlands, CA > > kevin_haugh redlands k12 ca us > > > > _______________________________________________ > K12OSN mailing list > K12OSN redhat com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn > For more info see <http://www.k12os.org> -- James P. Kinney III CEO & Director of Engineering Local Net Solutions,LLC 770-493-8244 http://www.localnetsolutions.com GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics) <jkinney localnetsolutions com> Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part