[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [K12OSN] SCSI Reliability

SCSI will live longer then IDE give 3 things:
1. Adaquate Cooling
2. Plenty of power (Dont skimp on the PS)
3. A Good warentee

Mosts SCSI drives come with a 3 years warentee anyways. Besides, SCSI
is so much faster that it is worth it. And in my opinion, if you are
running a server of any kind, RAID IT!


> I think that your Tech friend has an opinion, probably not based on
a large sample
> population...  I used LVD SCA scsi in servers, and IDE in work
station type PCs. I se no
> difference in the reliability, so long as adequate cooling is present.
> If you look, the rotating drive mechanism is often the same on
modern SCSI and IDE
> drives. The circuit board mounted on the drive is what varies.
Consequently, the
> reliability of the rotating drive component is likely very similar.
> Note that the circuit board on the IDE Master drive is critical, if
it fails, you will
> probably lose access to the slave as well.  On SCSI, the failed
drive is less likely to
> obstruct access to the other drives on that scsi cable, because the
brains are on the
> SCSI adapter. And that is much less likely to get overheated because
the spacing allowes
> better air flow.
> I have run SCSI LVD SCA in RAID 5 setups for more than 4 years. All
drives are 3.5 inch
> low profile (1 inch height) drives. They are packed tight in the
raid cage, no extra
> space in between drives. Coolong is important, the raid cages I use
all have attached
> cooling fans, and I check that the fans are still spinning once in a
> Out of 9 drives running 24/7, only one has failed. The new drive
rebuilt its data with no
> loss of data.
> SCSI is expensive, IDE is less expensive.  If you want cheap
reliability, get one of the
> IDE RAID conrollers that run 3, 4 or even more drive channels (one
drive per ide cable).
> The adapter is priced high like raid SCSI adapters, but the drives
are a lot cheaper to
> buy, especially the drives over 18GB. Big ATA100 drives are dirt
cheap compared to SCSI.
> That's my opinion, at least.
> --- Daniel Loomis <dloomis cox-internet com> wrote:
> > I was talking the other day with the service manager of a computer
systems and 
> > service provider in our area about implementing SCSI drives on our
> > server.  He was not terribly encouraging.  His experience with
lots and lots 
> > of servers (most running NT or Win2k) has been with repeated
failures of SCSI 
> > drives . . . much more so than with IDE HDs.  He is especially
down on 
> > Seagate SCSI drives as he has had to replace a number of those lately.
> > 
> > I was under the impression that SCSI drives are at least as
reliable as those 
> > using IDE interfaces.  My last SCSI drives were those installed on
an Autocad 
> > Server running Novell about 10 years ago.  I guess the move to
10,000 & 
> > 15,000 rpm drives could be a major factor in their reliability,
but have not 
> > read anything to that effect online.  I did not ask if the failed
drives had 
> > been equipped with hd cooling fans.
> > 
> > Has anyone had similar experiences or is the anecdotal experience
of my 
> > acquaintance unusual?
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > P.S.  My friend did say that SCSI tape drives were DEFINITELY the
way to go.
> > -------------------------------------
> > Dr. Daniel Loomis
> > El Dorado, Arkansas
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > K12OSN mailing list
> > K12OSN redhat com
> > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> > For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
> =====
> _______________________________________________
> K12OSN mailing list
> K12OSN redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
> For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]