On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:11:11 GMT, flux wrote:

In article ,
Faeandar wrote:

Fairly reliable is not the same thing.

It's not the same thing as what?

Not the same as reliable. Fairly reliable != reliable.


Do you want an airplane that's
fairly reliable?

Yes.

Good luck with that. I want one that's very reliable.


Point is that reliability of ATA is nowhere near
that of Scsi or FC. Once you get down into the desktop class drives

This statement is just fiction. Drives today are roughly the same in reliability, marketing claims notwithstanding.

Too many vendors discuss ATA and SATA as tier2 storage for this to be
fiction. Pick a vendor, talk to them about a SATA or ATA array and
see what they say. Also ask them about their failure rates for each
type of drive. 4 vendors I've talked to all say the same thing,
(S)ATA are tier2. Both for reliability and performance.


I should have said a recommended maximum raid group size. Nothing

Which is?

Depends on the vendor. NetApp is 8, HDS is 10 (depending on what
category you get), and I believe IBM is 10 also but can't recall
exactly. A noteworthy point too is that of these only NetApp uses
ATA, the others use SATA.

~F