>Well, IDE drives are cheaper, and use lesser quality of components, but
[...]
>I do agree with the person below.. SCSI is a much better solution for 24/7
>systems like a bbs.. more expensive SCSI drives have much better
>reliablility rateings. even the lowend SCSI drives match the highend IDE
>ones. I prefer Quantum, Seagate, IBM scsi drives (Atlas, Baracuda, ???)
[...]
I don't think you can necessarily generalize like this. I personally
wouldn't recommend a Barracuda to anyone who wasn't planning on
running it in a fridge. I've seen several have very short, hot,
lives (shorter than any dead IDE drive I've seen).
SCSI drives tend to die just the same way as IDE, first you get
occaisional errors, then frequent errors from the driver about having
to reset the drive, then it fails to mount. SCSI drives are more
intelligent and can be more verbose about problems, I remember one
(Barracuda I think) actually had a set of diagnostic LEDs on it.
We asked a resident ex-Seagate-engineer disk expert, conversation went
something like:
"What are these LEDs then ?"
"Diagnostics"
"What is it saying ?"
<pause for closer examination>
"Drive F**ked"
On the other hand I think the old 5.25 full-height 1GB Seagates are
still going after many years of constant use.
>Bearing being worn out? Hahahahahah I dont think so. especially the
>spindle bearings. Hahahaahahahahah
Yes. I thought that most of the SCSI/IDE difference was in the
interface electronics, and that the actual disk hardware was the same.
ray
--
Ray Auchterlounie <rda@kythera.demon.co.uk>
"Forty Two! Is that all you've got to show for
seven and a half million years' work?"