Re: SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- From: Walter Mautner <leaf.20.eatallspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:06:40 +0200
Haines Brown wrote:
For many years I've been devoted to SCSI hard disks, but market trendsSCSI is for the server market, while SATA drives mostly are consumer grade.
seem to suggest SCSI is dying out. If that the case, does my sticking
with SCSI any longer make sense?
SATA drives are specified for 8/24 use, while SCSI are for 24/7.
You can of course get SATA server grade drives as well, since most new
storage cabinets have moved to SATA.
The drives then are not much cheaper than SCSI drives.
Would a move to a SATA 3.0 Gb/s drive such as the Seagate Barracuda meanBoth use the scsi interface layer, but you need the chipset drivers or
that I will henceforth have to accept drive unreliability? I'm more
interested in reliability than top speed (or, obviously, even cost).
If I were to attach a SATA drive to my desktop machine, I'd be inclined
to do a cross install of linux to the new SATA drive from my running
SCSI drive. Any reason such a procedure would be problematic because of
the interface difference?
drivers for your scsi/sata controller in place (kernel or initrd if you
want to boot from the attached drives).
--
vista policy violation: Microsoft optical mouse found penguin patterns
on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending
incompatible products. Reactivate MS software.
Linux 2.6.24. [LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- References:
- SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- From: Haines Brown
- SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- Prev by Date: Re: Wireless RF_KILL switch
- Next by Date: Re: SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- Previous by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- Next by thread: Re: SCSI vs SATA hard disks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|