ATA Reliability: Seagate, WD, Maxtor

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

And why do rabbis & ministers do that also at roughly th same rate?

Rabbis and imams don't - they tend to be married.


Thomas

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:49:47 +0200, Zak wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

And why do rabbis & ministers do that also at roughly th same rate?

Rabbis and imams don't - they tend to be married.


Thomas

That's a popular misconception.

Sexual predation has nothing to do with marriage. A great many sexual
predators are indeed married. Neither does a personal sacrifice to
God like celibacy imply sexual aberrance or ineptitude. Piety does
not = aberrance.

That NO imam or rabbi has even been convicted of predation/abuse is
completely false.

Not to extend this too much. It was an artless comment, not really
the source of discussion in a storage group.

"Curious George" wrote in message
...

This is a storage group not a religious or child molestation group so
I don't want to get into a discussion of specific cases. I also don't
want to be involved in posts which may appear (albeit incorrectly) to
smear rabbis, ministers or the media just I don't like to see smearing
priests.

Fair enough.

We're not disagreeing on this. I've been citing everything I could
think of to explain (in plain English) why SATA (at this time) makes
little sense in _most_ normal & important storage environments. I did
leave out the 3ware Multilane connections, for example, to see if Flux
might engage me on it when discussing his 50 spindle example. But it
appears to be just another thing he's never heard of or seen.

I guess it all comes down to what you have to gain or lose by convincing him
either way? Personally, I find it best to let some of these zealots do
their own research by using accepted practices or by finding the facts the
hard way by expensive trial and error. If he has enough money and time to
reinvent the wheel, even if it's square and doesn't rotate, by all means,
let him do it.



Rita

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:34:00 -0400, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

We're not disagreeing on this. I've been citing everything I could
think of to explain (in plain English) why SATA (at this time) makes
little sense in _most_ normal & important storage environments. I did
leave out the 3ware Multilane connections, for example, to see if Flux
might engage me on it when discussing his 50 spindle example. But it
appears to be just another thing he's never heard of or seen.

I guess it all comes down to what you have to gain or lose by convincing him
either way? Personally, I find it best to let some of these zealots do
their own research by using accepted practices or by finding the facts the
hard way by expensive trial and error. If he has enough money and time to
reinvent the wheel, even if it's square and doesn't rotate, by all means,
let him do it.

Since I & probably most of the ppl instructing him have nothing to
gain - it probably would have been a better use of our time.

In article ,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

flux wrote:

This is just as effective and just as foolish as putting a 3.5HP
Brigs & Stratton lawnmower engine in a Porsche 911. If you want a
system to be like SCSI you should just buy SCSI in the first place.
All this dicking around doesn't change the fact that all the wasted
money and time you threw at SATA will ever get you to square one.

In other words it makes a lot of sense.

Sure, it makes a lot of sense if all you want is to have higher numbers
(storage) without any performance and reliability (SATA) for the sake of,

SATA = reliability. So what's your logic?

So why are so many Catholic priests molesting children? Just because there
are a group or large number of people doing it doesn't make it right.

This is logic?

In article ,
Curious George wrote:

Is this SATA- SCSI stuff really all that common? Depends on what

Actually, there seems to be more SATA - fibre.

In article ,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

Don't get me wrong since SATA has its place. SATA will eventually be the
wave of the future for all over-the-counter consumer appliances; it's not
that we'll see that happening in the next decade, though. The issue I have

That's because it is happening in this decade.

is when you see a piece of technology (SATA) do its best to emulate
something it's trying to replace (SCSI) and not being able to do it well.

Actually, SCSI is trying to emulate SATA.

And when it even gets to be a contender it will be just as expensive as
SCSI/FC. So, I only see limited benefit to using SATA in non-critical

Seems to me it's about 1/3 the cost.

In article ,
Curious George wrote:

We're not disagreeing on this. I've been citing everything I could
think of to explain (in plain English) why SATA (at this time) makes
little sense in _most_ normal & important storage environments. I did

So far you haven't cited anything.

In article ,
Curious George wrote:

So why is everyone doing that?

Who said everyone?

You're right. Everyone but the people who post to this thread.

In article ,
Curious George wrote:

SOHO boxes? Single channels across the whole box? Who's doing that?

IIRC this family of products
http://www.firewiredirect.com/store/...me.php?cat=423
The array appears as a single unit connected via either FireWire800,
USBv2.0/1.1 or SATA Interface

Oh, that kind of thing. For a second thing, we agree :-)

the drives in the external box in addition to any other limitations/
inefficiencies of this uncommon, low-end solution.

Companies that are trying to make SATA fit better for larger
enterprise scenario make boxes with a SATA-SCSI bridge. These are
not bargain basement/soho cheap & you're still using scsi cabling &
HBA's so the economics are somewhat questionable. Very questionable
if using Raptors.

The economics aren't questionable if you want space. For that, you can't beat Hitachi 7K400s.

Yes and no- as has been explained ad nauseum

Yes, I have explained that.
No, nobody has the explained the "no", or at least not very convincingly.

In short 50 SATA spindles per computer is indeed a mess & not as cheap
as you think.

Yes, it is.

Ah we finally agree

Uh, I think I was saying that it *is* very cheap and easy to implement
50 SATA spindles. Gosh, hasn't EMC been plastering every trade rag in
the last year about how easy it is?