[mythtv-users] The Bigger... Disk contest, Fall 2007 edition

Kevin Hulse jedi at mishnet.org
Fri Oct 19 05:03:55 UTC 2007


On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:08:14PM -0400, Mailing Lists wrote:
> > Well, to be clear: I just think that there's a reason why SCSI drives
> > cost 6 times as much, and that it comes out in reliability.
> > 
> > And, FWIW, I now *have* read that Google paper, or at least the
> > abstract and the lede, and it doesn't mention SCSI disks at *all*; I
> > repeat: the Google White Paper *does not say* that ATA disks are just as
> > reliable as equivalent SCSI disks.
> > 
> 
> Given that major companies like IBM and SUN now support SATA in their
> SAN devices, I think its safe to say that reliability has come way up on
> these drives.  There was a time that I agreed with you on SCSI but I

	Not really.

	Those sorts of setups are advertised for that "less important"
data that you're more willing to lose or have unavailable and don't
need to be particularly fast.

> believe the SATA has matured the low end hard drive to work just as
> effectively in a high end environment like a SAN.  The low-cost of the

[deletia]

	Even if the failure rates are good enough, the TCQ has to 
catch up. Regardless of how much RAM you shove on the frontend you
will eventually get to the point where you're moving at the speed
of physical seeks and reads. Corporations simply won't leave well
enough alone. They can't they will take a well engineered solution
and overburden it.

       ...even happened with Panzer tanks.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list