Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 08:50:44AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>>> difference. OTOH, the SCSI discs were way less reliable than the SATA
> >>>> discs, that might have been bad luck.
> >>> Probably bad luck. I find that SCSI is very reliable, but I don't find
> >>> it any more reliable than SATA. That is assuming correct ventilation etc...
> >> Perhaps a basic question - but why does the interface matter? :-)
> >>
> >> I find the subject interesting to read about - but I am having trouble
> >> understanding why SATAII is technically superior or inferior to SCSI as
> >> an interface, in any place that counts.
> >
> > You should probably read this to learn the difference between desktop
> > and enterprise-level drives:
> >
> > http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
>
> Problem is :), you can purchase SATA Enterprise Drives.
Right --- the point is not the interface, but whether the drive is built
for reliability or to hit a low price point.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
