- Re: Is SATA currently unreliable?
- Posted by Rita Ä Berkowitz on April 2nd, 2004
"John Smith" <smitty@con.com> wrote in message
news:94BF5FDE640D63A75@130.133.1.4...
Yes, this is why it is so important to use SCSI when you are building a
system that is going to be used for real world applications. SATA is
presently only used in novelty system that are favored by over-clockers and
the neon light crowd.
Rita
- Posted by Arno Wagner on April 2nd, 2004
Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote:
That is maybe a bit overstated. But in principle consumer-grade
drives are significantly less reliable than SCSI. With RAID
they are still reliable enough for the real world. However SCSI
is faster in seek-intensive uses (i.e. smaller reads). So if
you need reliability and speed for small accesses, go SCSI.
If cost does not matter much, use SCSI. If cost matters, but
power consumption and noise does not matter do carefully
designed RAID on IDE. If cost, power and noise matter, use
a single Samsung IDE drive and do frequent backups.
I have had recent compatibility isues with SATA and I would say
it is not mature yet. Give it another year or so.
Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
- Posted by Joe Brown on April 2nd, 2004
Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4jua4$2krhs8$3@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de...
Anything that new never is.
Pathetic excuse for a troll, as always from the Bigotowitz.
Just a tad.
Have fun explaining why PATA is fine and SATA aint.
You dont have to use RAID, various other approaches
to real time backup give much more protection against
inevitable failure with any systems.
And very few actually have seek intensive
apps with personal desktop systems.
Or have real time backup that provides a lot more than just RAID.
Only need frequent backups if the data changes much.
It doesnt with most personal desktop systems.
Corse it isnt given how long its been buyable for.
- Posted by dg on April 2nd, 2004
I don't think any statement pertaining to reliability can be made based
solely on the drive interface. I am sure there have been some crappy SCSI
drives made before too, but I wouldn't say that SCSI overall is unreliable
just because some of them are.
--Dan
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote in message
news:106qlj5i7qm0kb6@corp.supernews.com...
- Posted by Rita Ä Berkowitz on April 2nd, 2004
At this point in time I would have to agree with you. I just don't feel the
reliability of SATA is at a point were a "set it and forget it" system can
made using them. I'll give SATA a serious look in a year or so, also.
Maybe they will be developed to the point were SCSI can be abandoned
completely?
Rita
- Posted by Rita Ä Berkowitz on April 2nd, 2004
"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C9mbc.17575$R06.13181@newssvr27.news.prodigy. com...
The statement was made with taking into consideration that, as a whole, SATA
cannot reliably compete with SCSI. Keep in mind that SCSI still overshadows
SATA for performance, function, and reliability. And yes, I too have seen
some real shitty SCSI drives, Western Digital comes to mind.
Rita
- Posted by Eric Gisin on April 2nd, 2004
The URL is Hale Landis's site. He claims the current implementation of sATA,
host/device/bridge, is flakey and prone to spurious errors. I doubt he means
drive reliability.
"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C9mbc.17575$R06.13181@newssvr27.news.prodigy. com...
- Posted by Arno Wagner on April 3rd, 2004
Previously "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote:
I don't think so. SCSI has other advantages, like longer cables.
But it is not actually the interface that makes SCSI drives
more reliable. It is the market. (O.k., some problems with the
interface too, like no multi-path I/O in SATA,...). I believe
as soon as the interface is mature it is quite possible to
create SATA drives at SCSI speed, reloability and price levels.
I would like that. But it is unlikely that the "cheap and fast"
crowd will buy these, and the "SCSI crowd" will likely see no
reason to go from a good interface to a potentially good one.
Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
- Posted by Alexander Grigoriev on April 5th, 2004
Well, "Serial SCSI" (or whatever it is called) is supposed to use the same
electrical signalling as SATA (which is very reasonable move). At least no
more bulky expensive cables.
"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4m0o4$2kr5op$1@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de...
- Posted by Ron Reaugh on April 5th, 2004
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote in message
news:106qlj5i7qm0kb6@corp.supernews.com...
Clueless drivel.
- Posted by Ron Reaugh on April 5th, 2004
"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4jua4$2krhs8$3@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de...
Utter nonsense. Cite any real supporting information that assertion.
Only faster in some cases for the most expensive SCSI HDs at 3x the cost of
a fast ATA HD...can you say Raptor.
Then use RAID 5 or RAID 1 etc. whether ATA or SCSI.
Yep, but those lightening fast and expensive 15K RPM Fujitsus SCSI HDs.
Forget the power consumption and noise false assertions and you got it
right.
Doesn't need that long. I have a number of SATA Raptors running on W2K3
Servers and they're workin fine.
- Posted by Ron Reaugh on April 5th, 2004
"Joe Brown" <jb@wap,com.cz> wrote in message
news:406dac50$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...
-snip
For SCSI to show an advantage it takes more than just seek intensive tasks.
It takes saturating seek intensive tasks such that SCSI's queue of
outstanding IOs grows to the point where SCSI HD's onboard optimizations
actually contribute to throughput. Such a queue depth also means that a
workstation will have to become sluggish(over saturated) to realize the
advantage.
- Posted by Ron Reaugh on April 5th, 2004
"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C9mbc.17575$R06.13181@newssvr27.news.prodigy. com...
Yep.
Sure have been.
- Posted by Ron Reaugh on April 5th, 2004
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2004@aol.com> wrote in message
news:106rthsjd8ajh31@corp.supernews.com...
SATA can compete very well indeed in the price performance category. Is
there any other category?
You forgot the most important issue. SCSI vastly overshadows SATA in cost.
What's an Adaptec 29320A going for...~$300 and that's a single channel
non-RAID card.
- Posted by Ron Reaugh on April 5th, 2004
"Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aB5cc.15470$Dv2.2414@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
Damn, I love parallel SCSI cabling and termination issues....I guess mostly
because most don't understand it well....job security and everything ya
know.
- Posted by Folkert Rienstra on April 5th, 2004
"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:c4jua4$2krhs8$3@ID-2964.news.uni-berlin.de
[Troll snipped]
Nope, no principle involved.
Nonsense,
there is enterprise grade SATA and there is consumer grade SCSI too.
SCSI also has big overhead on small transfers.
- Posted by Rita Ä Berkowitz on April 6th, 2004
"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3vkcc.41876$He5.802211@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
device in the chain.
Rita
- Posted by Rita Ä Berkowitz on April 6th, 2004
"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Vukcc.41871$He5.800546@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Yes, Rod, reliability. I guess if you need a system you can depend on, a
few extra bucks up front will save loads of money, prevent lost data and
productivity you would want the reliability of SCSI.
Again, if your data, time, and personal are worthless and easily replaceable
than you can go with the SATA novelty to save a few pennies up front..
Rita
- Posted by Rita Ä Berkowitz on April 6th, 2004
"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:yukcc.24662$vo5.768004@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Of course it is, Rod.
Rita
- Posted by Ron Reaugh on April 6th, 2004
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk20O4@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1073tl9bpm0r77d@corp.supernews.com...
Another one I see.
I sure that you meant to say terminate both physical ends of the cable.
Termination has nothing to do with devices except that in SE SCSI on a
device was frequently a convenient place to locate a terminator. Tell us
all about the terminators onboard LVD HDs, why don't ya??
You gotta understand SCSI terminology a little better as there's ambiguity
between the "chain" and the "cable". How many terminations are there on a
SCSI 'chain' that includes a bridge chip(like Adaptec's) where there's an SE
cable section and a LVD cable section? What about an SE cable with a narrow
section and a wide section; do ya know where all the terminations go?
