Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I don't get why you would assume a disk is naturally faster just because it uses the SCSI interface. Take a single hypothetical disk drive, for example. Now change the "connector" from whatever, to SCSI, to SATA, to IDE, to FC, to whatever. The only thing that has changed is the way the disk interfaces with its controller. The actual disk itself (platters, actuators, spindles, etc, etc) has remained exactly the same. So why would any particular disk be faster just because it uses a SCSI interface?
Besides, I think the scores for a couple of older disks are just fine.
SCSI drives handle error corrections internally so they are more reliable. There are also options for hot swap replacements that keep highly available servers running when a drive is replaced - e.g., in a RAID environment.
Well, I am going to have to disagree that SCSI is more reliable. I have nearly 200 workstations at work and they are split about 50/50 between IDE and SCSI drives. The SCSI stations suffer drive failures about 3 times as often as the IDE stations. They are all about the same age (within 2-4 years old) and they are all several different brands. However Seagate drives seems to die more often than the rest. SCSI drives used to be faster because they supported higher spindle speeds and were a faster interface, but IDE drives are just as fast anymore. IMHO there really is no reason to buy a SCSI drive unless you are going to run 5 of them in a RAID config. RAID's are about the only places SCSI's shine.
It seems odd you are experiencing 3x more failures. If the mechanical parts were the same, I would expect the SCSI controllers to extend the life further than an IDE drive. We have almost all SCSI in about the same amounts, and some PC workstations with IDE. They SCSI drives and swapped around alot so I expect more failures (specially when dropped), but also realize if we did that with the IDE drives they would probably go much faster - connector life time as we use SCSI LVD connections.
The other place SCSI is good for is swapping drives in an out quick when you are bringing clusters up and down in software builds, and don't want to blow away a working set(s).
SCSI is more reliable than IDE, although the gap has lessend. Although there are numerous advantages to the SCSI interface, SCSI's biggest avantage is in the Enterprise, where the disks could be accessed by hundreds of users simultaneously, something a IDE disk would have nightmares about.
I agree. RAID's and hot-swappability are the only thing its got going for it. For a single user's workstation tho, in my opinion, IDE is the best choice. It's just as fast, more cost-effective, and in my experience more reliable. And yes, drive mirroring with IDE is a nightmare.....