Re: [SLE] Linux Success and Question
From: Rikard Johnels (rikard.j_at_rikjoh.com)
Date: 10/09/05
- Previous message: Chris Carlen: "[SLE] Windows 2000 and Suse 9.1"
- In reply to: Michael W Cocke: "Re: [SLE] Linux Success and Question"
- Next in thread: James Knott: "Re: [SLE] Linux Success and Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 01:01:51 +0200
On Saturday 08 October 2005 22.36, Michael W Cocke wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 15:54:47 -0400, you wrote:
> >On Saturday 08 October 2005 03:02 pm, Michael W Cocke wrote:
> >> I tend more toward the paranoid about disk systems... SATA doesn't
> >> have enough of a track record to make me happy about using them. Ask
> >> me again in a year.
> >
> >I've been running PC's since day one of the IBM PC (1981) and usually
> > have about 6 PC's going around the house. I used to be totally SCSI but
> > like you, I just couldn't warrant the cost anymore... but I still have a
> > couple of machines with SCSI, some with IDE and a couple with SATA.
> >
> >In all those years, and having had (a guess) about 35 drives during that
> > time, I don't recall ever losing a drive due to hardware failure...
> > except about two months ago. Yup, a SATA drive, and I would guess it
> > was less than a year old. (Maxtor 250GB)
> >
> >I replaced it and within a month I had an unreadable sector on the new
> > drive (Seagate 250) but was able to recover everything (Acronis
> > TrueImage) and the drive is still working.
> >
> >Doesn't give me warm fuzzies about SATA drives but it's not a very big
> > sample.
>
> Sounds like I'm a little older than you. I had the dubious honor of
> repairing everything from IBM and Burroughs minis to CP/M-80 and
> MPM/II systems, pre-PC.
>
> Speaking purely for my own hardware over the years, I wouldn't hazard
> a guess how many drives I've had. I used to run the 3rd largest BBS
> in NJ for one thing, but I've seen easily over 30 hardware faults on
> disk drives (just mine - I've seen hundreds total) - but oddly, I can
> count the ones on SCSI drives on one hand. Can't say I understand it,
> because logically the hardware between SCSI and IDE really should be
> about the same... but I won't argue with reality this time.
>
> Mike-
>
> --
> Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the grumpy will survive.
> --
>
> Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
> site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces, try
> non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments.
>
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
I think it has something to do with heat.
The few SCSI's i have seen/used all seem "thicker" and more heat resilient
than the IDE's. Some even have heatsink design with small tabs around it.
During my years of running PC's and a few High end Workstations, i have had a
higher ratio of ATA failures than SCSI. And the few SCSI's that have died has
been in use some 5-10 years non stop. So thats 5-600 k hours continous
running. So i think they suffered from old age.
I have had a fair share of ATA disks die on me, anything from 4G to 200G.
And most haven't runned more than a year. And some not even nonstop at that.
In my case they seem to start with bad blocks that escalate to really trashed
drives.
Only one hardware failure as far as i have been able to conclude. (A 80 gig
that apparently lost a read head.)
Whats more; I have mostly lost drives under windows... And that is something i
cant understand.
Seems like Windows use the disk system differently. Wears them down or
something.
Most badblocks start around boot blocks/FAT's (and make you think "Visurs")
and the spread out over the disk. They have been virusfree, and freshly
defragged and everyting.
The disks failing under linux have been in systems running almost non stop
for 3 to 5 years.
As for the S-ATA / P-ATA difference.
As far as i know its just the controllerboard on the disk that differs.
The internal drive is the same. Its just a new cabling and signal system.
So the hardware that actually "runs" (motor, heads and what not) are the same.
Why a S-ATA should be ani different is anybody's guess.
One COULD be cabling. Its easier to get a bad connection on a A-ATA plug.
It needs to be seated really well unless oxidation and vibrations take the
better of it.
The older EIDE flat cable is easier to get in a full fit. They dont come loose
that easily.
That is the same with SCSI.
Some connectors (The older ones) sit more tightly than the new ones (eg. LVD)
And as usual, cable quality.
The better the cable, the better the connection.
Its frustrating to check a system for failing cables. Its so intermittent that
its almost impossible to catch.
Enough ranting....
--
/Rikard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
email : rikard.j@rikjoh.com
web : http://www.rikjoh.com
mob : +46 (0)736 19 76 25
------------------------ Public PGP fingerprint ----------------------------
< 15 28 DF 78 67 98 B2 16 1F D3 FD C5 59 D4 B6 78 46 1C EE 56 >
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
- Previous message: Chris Carlen: "[SLE] Windows 2000 and Suse 9.1"
- In reply to: Michael W Cocke: "Re: [SLE] Linux Success and Question"
- Next in thread: James Knott: "Re: [SLE] Linux Success and Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
