Enterprise Drives

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

And the corporate buyer would vote with his foot if it was only that.

The corporate crowd will choose SCSI hands down.

Rita

 

[Rod Speed]

The corporate crowd will choose SCSI hands down.

Taint their money, stupid.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

The corporate crowd will choose SCSI hands down.

Not any longer.

 

[Toshi1873]

The corporate crowd will choose SCSI hands down.

For main storage, yes.

For storage of large amounts of data that gets accessed
infrequently... no. SATA raid is so much cheaper then
SCSI, easy enough to build (2) SATA RAID arrays, with
hot-spare drives and hot-spare arrays and still come in
cheaper then SCSI.

But then, SATA doesn't bring anything more to the table
then PATA did in that regards (other then the ease of
cabling and future hot-plug support).

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Huh?

Right, too stupid to even notice that that is what he said:

"There are no enterprise ATA drives. The Raptor is, but it is sATA."
"Enterprise drives are built to operate 7*24 for years with constant activity"

So that's a "Yes, the SATA Raptor is 5 years warranty and is for 24*7".

The usual troll technique of attacking the poster when you run out in
relevant content.

Wimp!
Yes, you have that effect on people. It's hard to resist with you around,
and so deliberately baiting.

But you only need to read a few posts in here to know that I am statistically
right. Find any stupid comment and it wil most likely be in a broken post.

Of course some are just lucky that no lines were exceeding to what their
auto_line_break had been set at.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

They say "For near-line and other low-I/O secondary storage applications, they
’re rated at better than 1 million hours MTTF.", but don't define what low I/O
means. It is also 3 year warranty.

The "low-I/O" bit bothers me. Sounds like they intend the drives to be
used for archival (long-term storage).

In other words, they're not rated for use in, say, a RAID5 NAS or SAN
appliance.