On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 at 09:35:28PM +0000, Nick Chalk wrote:
> john lewis <johnlewis@???> wrote:
> > Nick Chalk <nick@???> wrote:
> >> Of course, if you want something that's going
> >> to be _really_ reliable, I'd recommend LSI
> >> Logic SCSI controllers, with Fujitsu or Maxtor
> >> (nee Quantum) SCSI drives. :-)
> > costing lots of pennies I imagine :-(
>
> Up-front costs are higher than PATA or SATA, yes.
>
> However, consider the Adaptec controller and IBM
> 10k RPM drive in one of my boxes, still running
> after ten years' use. The per-annum cost is quite
> reasonable. :-)
>
I thought the evidence now suggested that the actual failure rate
of a disk is proportional to it's age with only a small bath-tub
effect and there was no longevity difference between modern SCSI
or PATA/SATA disks at all. In the early days SCSI disks were both
more reliable and more flexible and potentially faster, now the
only difference is that they cost a lot more per Mb.
There was some paper publised recently that Google funded - they
have a lot of disks and wanted to understand how they failed - or
something...
--
Adam Trickett
Overton, HANTS, UK
Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.
-- John Lennon
