> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:50:32PM -0400, Jason Crawford wrote: >> The main reason I suggested SATA-II is because the OP said he >> can't do SCSI, but still wants a good RAID. Granted, 32 commands > > I would *like* to do SCSI, but when you look at the cost/GB ratio, there's just no comparison (at least for my home network, where the most demanding task will be video-on-demand).
what is the point of this? DVD movie DTR is <10Mbit/s, or less than 2Mbyte/s. Buy what suits your needs, and if it is the $4.00/Mbyte storage of 15k U320 drives you need, get them. I think asking misc@ what your needs are is pointless. > >> dependent on data will have the money for SCSI RAID1+0, no >> problem, as it's tried and true technology, as well as still the fastest. However the OP talked about rebuilding a server on a home > > What this means (if anything) I can't say for sure, but the > marketing/hype around SCSI has it categorized as "enterprise class". Typically, SCSI drives have longer warranties, greater MTBF, and they're manufacturing process is supposed to be superior, and they are designed to run continuously in warmer conditions... and it's > tried and true technology. > > What I've been doing for the last several years is buy one smaller, SCSI drive to use as my "main" drive (OS, user programs, etc), and buy the dramatically cheaper IDE drives for bulk storage. > >> maxing that out any time soon, and you can get 160GB SATA-II disk for under $90, good luck finding a U320 SCSI disk close to that >> size for even close to that price. > > Yup. I've been wanting to upgrade my main SCSI drive to a 73 GB Seagate 10k RPM. The lowest price I can find is about $235 (US). Two and a half the price at less than half the storage :( The 15k RPM drives are more expensive still. Seagate now has a "Savvio" > line of 10k RPM SCSI drives in a 2.5" form factor (note book size). How's $800 (US) for a 73 GB drive?! > > -Matt > > -- > Matt Garman > email at: http://raw-sewage.net/index.php?file=email
