Re: SCSI vs SATA

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Ron wrote:

> At 10:07 PM 4/5/2007, david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> > Server class drives are designed with a longer lifespan in mind.
>> >
>> > Server class hard drives are rated at higher temperatures than desktop
>> > drives.
>>
>> these two I question.
>>
>> David Lang
> Both statements are the literal truth.  Not that I would suggest abusing your
> server class HDs just because they are designed to live longer and in more
> demanding environments.
>
> Overheating, nasty electrical phenomenon, and abusive physical shocks will
> trash a server class HD almost as fast as it will a consumer grade one.
>
> The big difference between the two is that a server class HD can sit in a
> rack with literally 100's of its brothers around it, cranking away on server
> class workloads 24x7 in a constant vibration environment (fans, other HDs,
> NOC cooling systems) and be quite happy while a consumer HD will suffer
> greatly shortened life and die a horrible death in such a environment and
> under such use.

Ron,
   I know that the drive manufacturers have been claiming this, but I'll
say that my experiance doesn't show a difference and neither do the google
and CMU studies (and they were all in large datacenters, some HPC labs,
some commercial companies).

again the studies showed _no_ noticable difference between the
'enterprise' SCSI drives and the 'consumer' SATA drives.

David Lang