I think you are blaming it on the wrong component here...

I'm quite sure it's not the disks, it's the controller, the server can do
quite good
on one disk, but trying to spread the load out on more than two disks and
the controller(?) breaks...

So the deal is, i'm not complaining about SATA (yet), i'm complaining about
a quite obvious crappy controller card from Adaptec.

The story also contains a "side-story", my brother bought an external SATA
based raid unit, which is doing very well compared to other SCSI unit's
(especially
if you add "cost" to the metric).

The interface to the unit is SCSI, but internally it used SATA disks. So to
my
understanding I should be able to get the same, just "internal" based with
the
right equipment (controller card).

My belief is that the disk market will eventually go SATA, SATA technology
will
get better and better fewer SCSI disks will be sold, therefore get more and
more
expensive, and finally die.

best regards,
Carsten



"Rita Ä Berkowitz" skrev i en meddelelse
...
news.tele.dk wrote:

SATA was chosen based on cost/benefit.
We figured we could buy approx. 4 times the amount of SATA disks
compared to SCSI.

Yep, you got great cost savings without any benefits by going SATA. You
spent a good chunk of change on all your other hardware to degrade it back
to a gamer's machine or an eMachine for the sake of saving a few bucks.
That machine will only see it's full potential when you put U320 SCSI in
it.

Some of Tom's hardware recent tests was very promissing abount SATA
compared to SCSI...

Again, another victim of the hype, propaganda, and other bull**** one
finds
at Tom's Hardware.

Scrap the SATA garbage and get what you want in the first place, U320
SCSI.
Doing otherwise is looking for long-term problems and heartache. Good
luck.


Rita
--
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/