Graeme Fowler wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 12:11 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> I'd agree, but for those who write the checks the cheapness of (s)ata is >> hard to resist. It's very unlikely the savings weigh up against the >> increased reliability of scsi, but as with many things, money talks. > > In this and my previous $dayjob I've had some degree of responsibility > for a range of NetApp filers or similar devices from other vendors with > fiber channel, SCSI and SATA disks in various configurations. The > failure rate of the SATA disks far outweighs the rates of the others. > > That said, the way the arrays are put together in many cases the first > evidence of a drive failure is a box arriving from the vendor with a > replacement, or a phone call from their tech support to tell us. Ah, the > joys of enterprise support contracts :) > > Graeme > >
Nowadays, we pull the typical PATA/SATA within 2 years, so still have near-zero failures in use, and can no longer justify the SCSI premium. Bill -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
