SATA vs SCSI

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob Nicholson
  • Start date Start date
J. Clarke said:
It's surprising how often that works. Another issue that often arises is
that it is common for two PCI slots to be hard-wired to the same interrupt
trace.
Click to expand...

Just as common as any PCI slot being wired to any other PCI connected
chip on the MoBo itself.
 
This person usually this approachable?
Click to expand...

Normally much worse than that.

Almost never actually assists anyone with anything,
normally just interested in mindless sniping/nit picking
and attacking everything some individuals posts, most
obviously with his responses to what Arno posts.
 
Rod said:
Normally much worse than that.

Almost never actually assists anyone with anything,
normally just interested in mindless sniping/nit picking
and attacking everything some individuals posts, most
obviously with his responses to what Arno posts.
Click to expand...


Be gentle on the poor sod - he obviously has serious
emotional/psychological issues.

You can't blame him for that.


Odie
 
Rod said:
I dont care who is to blame, a bullet in the back
of the neck is the best approach with those.
Click to expand...

Rod, don't be easy on him. How about a more extreme approach?!


Odie
 
Rod Speed said:
Normally much worse than that.

Almost never actually assists anyone with anything,
normally just interested in mindless sniping/nit picking
and attacking everything some individuals posts,
Click to expand...

Yeah, I copy you alot, don't I. You must have a really bad influence here.
Maybe that's why some people even mistake me for you, ain't it, Roddles.
Odd how no one ever mistakes you for me.
most obviously with his responses to what Arno posts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've given up on you, mainly because you post
more rubbish per hour than I can debunk in a day.
And usually you will undo yourself so why even bother.

Oh, and who was it that warned him for not buying
yet another Silicon Image controller, Roddles?
What it you, any of the Clarke boys, Joepie or Arnie.
 
Try and use your brain as your Creator
intended it to be used and maybe you'll find out.
Click to expand...

He doesnt have any Creator and what creator he may
or may not have had didnt have any intentions on how his
brain should be used at the time of his creation, stupid.
 
Yeah, I copy you alot, don't I.
Click to expand...

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
You must have a really bad influence here.
Click to expand...

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Maybe that's why some people even mistake me for you, ain't it, Roddles.
Click to expand...

Not one ever does.
Odd how no one ever mistakes you for me.
Click to expand...

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Yeah, I've given up on you, mainly because you post
more rubbish per hour than I can debunk in a day.
And usually you will undo yourself so why even bother.
Click to expand...

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Oh, and who was it that warned him for not buying
yet another Silicon Image controller, Roddles?
Click to expand...

I dont comment on SCSI controllers, ****wit.
What it you, any of the Clarke boys, Joepie or Arnie.
Click to expand...

I never ever said that you never ever make any useful
comments, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist pseudokraut.
 
Arno said:
Stay SCSI. SATA may look the same in some benchmarks, but the
fact of it is that SATA is a cheap, mass-market product, while
SCSI is a professional product. It is designed with a different
mind-set. True, SCSI also fails sometimes. Also true SCSI may
not be that much faster today. But overall you get something
different when profit margins per unit are significanrt and
manufacturer care to have their products viewed as reliable
by people that are willing to pay a lot.
Click to expand...

Thats just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

The reason SCSI is not as "mass marketed" is because for single drive
systems; by far the most prevalent, SCSI is more expensive and offers
no advantages. The reality is that SCSI is less stable, not because of
the technology, but because far fewer people use it so the drivers and
subsystems are not as well supported in any of the major OS. My
personal experience is that SCSI drives seem to fail at a much higher
rate than IDEs, but thats likely due to higher RPMs. In fact you can
make a strong business case for using slower drives in many cases as
the failure rate of slower drives is must less than "high speed"
drives.

I don't know the specific performance advantages for SCSI vs SATA on
multi disk systems (I'm sure it varies from setup to setup, OS to OS
and MB to MB) but to reject SATA because you think SCSI is more
professional or more technically sound is simply ridiculous.

Tommy
 
Thats just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

And another one that will be banned from playing in Arnie's sandbox.
The reason SCSI is not as "mass marketed" is because for single drive
systems; by far the most prevalent, SCSI is more expensive and offers
no advantages. The reality is that SCSI is less stable, not because of
the technology, but because far fewer people use it so the drivers and
subsystems are not as well supported in any of the major OS.
Click to expand...

Uhuh.
You think that 20+ years of existence is not enough to learn how SCSI works.

I wonder what happens if you apply this chain of thought to RAID.
My personal experience is that SCSI drives seem to fail at a much higher
rate than IDEs, but thats likely due to higher RPMs. In fact you can
make a strong business case for using slower drives in many cases as
the failure rate of slower drives is must less than "high speed" drives.

I don't know the specific performance advantages for SCSI vs SATA on
multi disk systems (I'm sure it varies from setup to setup, OS to OS
Click to expand...
and MB to MB) but to reject SATA because you think SCSI is more
professional or more technically sound is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Actually, applying your chain of thought it should be tremendously more sound
than SATA just because it has been around for so much longer than SATA.
 
Folkert said:
Too late. You summoned all the trolls into a gathering.
Click to expand...


Yes - welcome to the gathering, Folkert.

Couldn't resist, could you?

Oh, the sweet irony.


Odie
 
Folkert said:
And another one that will be banned from playing in Arnie's sandbox.


Uhuh.
You think that 20+ years of existence is not enough to learn how SCSI works.

I wonder what happens if you apply this chain of thought to RAID.



Actually, applying your chain of thought it should be tremendously more sound
than SATA just because it has been around for so much longer than SATA.
Click to expand...

No, thats not the case, because people aren't running with equipment
and operating systems that are 20 years old. New SCSI MBs and
controllers require new and ongoing support as do other hardware
choices. The more samples you have the more likely that you will have
found all of the problems. There are far more samples for any given
SATA subsystem than there is for any given SCSI subsystem. People have
been using RS-232 serial communications for much longer than USB, so
does that mean that RS-232 devices are more reliable than USB devices?
Of course not; that's just plain stupid.

The most "reliable" system is one with a large single disk, and SCSI is
not a higher performance solution on a single disk system. A multiple
disk system has more parts to fail, has more layers of software to have
bugs, draws more power and generates more heat. SCSIs performance
advantages are only with multiple-disk systems. We use large Sata disks
and mirror them with rsync. Inexpensive, reliable and fast (enough).

Most people who've never done any actual testing have wrong ideas about
just about everything. Your logic is the same logic that says that a
system with 2 cpus must be faster than a system with 1 cpu. It seems
logical, but its simply not necessarily the case, and often isn't the
case at all.

I also find it comical that the same clan of folks who whine about the
power consumption advantages of AMD processors have no like opinions
when it comes to other equipment. Its a lot like politics; the case
that fits whatever it is you're doing is the one that suits you for the
present conversation.

TM
 
Back
Top