gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x57223100.hantslug.org.uk.22372': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Tue Aug 2 19:38:28 2011 BST
gpg: using RSA key 4BC36C6C174D31C1
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:09:56 +0100
"Rob Malpass" <linux@???> wrote:
Hello Rob,
> So in short - I guess my question is: Is SCSI so old it's not worth
> bothering with?
These days, TBH, I'd simply go with SATA. Partly because it's so simple
to connect devices to, and partly because drive sizes measured in
terrabytes, leave SCSI devices out on the cold.
OTOH, I never had any trouble with SCSI devices. Simply terminate both
ends (controller and last device physically) of the chain, and you're
off.
However, I recall plenty of people moaning they couldn't get things
working correctly. Usually, due to a misunderstanding of what "last
device" meant. Almost invariably, they had the device with the highest
ID terminated, even if it was mid-cable.
SCSI terminators are simply SIL resistor packs. Dead cheap. Nearly all
SCSI HDs came with them fitted. Occasionally, a separate terminator
device could be necessary, but they tended to be pricey for what they
were; A resistor pack in a SCSI connector.
Just checking prices, SATA drive; 1TB, £35
SCSI drive; 300GB, £192
So, if your SCSI HD goes down, getting a replacement is several orders
of magnitude more costly than SATA. If you've got access to plenty of
free SCSI drives though.......
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
It's becoming an obsession
Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods
