<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Timothy Legge wrote: <blockquote cite="midbe95b6c50711181121q5700ea23jc8ab2833d215f30b@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Nov 18, 2007 3:06 PM, Robert Arkiletian <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:robark@gmail.com"><robark@gmail.com></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I wonder about reliability though. How would it compare to my current system? dual Xeon 2.8Ghz 512K cache/cpu (533Mhz FSB) slow and hot Netburst arch Top of the line E7505 Intel Server MB (with Adaptec SCSI controller) 4GB Registered ECC PC-2100 (266Mhz) 2 x 36GB 10K rpm SCSI (raid 1) </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Power supplies are one area where some desktops fall down when in a server role. I have lost a couple over the years. Ram is a lot cheaper for desktops and typically faster (no ECC etc.). I believe SCSI still beats SATA in performance/reliability but I am not sure. </pre> </blockquote> Power supplies indeed can be an issue. For that reason, I stick to top-quality units. My favorite type at the moment is Antec's TruePower series. They deliver the current as advertised (and then some), they don't go down on me, and they're readily available at my local Micro Center. SCSI will always beat SATA in performance. However, SATA RAID is fast enough now that the cost/performance ratio makes SATA arrays very compelling. They're also hot-swappable, just like SCSI. Furthermore, many SATA RAID controllers also take SAS (Serial-Attached SCSI) hard disks, and yes, you can mix them in the array if you need to. That means that upgrading to SAS from SATA, should you need to, becomes relatively painless. --TP </body> </html>