atom feed13 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-scsiHitachi vs Seagate: Opinions wanted
FromSent OnAttachments
Marc G. FournierJun 29, 2004 11:11 am 
Jason A. CromeJun 29, 2004 11:22 am 
randall ehrenJun 29, 2004 11:23 am 
Scott T. SmithJun 29, 2004 11:29 am 
Jason A. CromeJun 29, 2004 11:38 am 
Don LewisJun 29, 2004 12:07 pm 
Samuel ClementsJun 29, 2004 12:11 pm 
Erich DollanskyJun 29, 2004 9:47 pm 
Ion-Mihai TetcuJun 30, 2004 4:31 am 
David SzeJun 30, 2004 6:30 am 
Matthias AndreeJun 30, 2004 8:50 am 
David SzeJul 2, 2004 7:10 am 
Matthias AndreeJul 2, 2004 7:15 am 
Subject:Hitachi vs Seagate: Opinions wanted
From:Ion-Mihai Tetcu (ite@apropo.ro)
Date:Jun 30, 2004 4:31:49 am
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-scsi

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:11:44 -0300 (ADT) "Marc G. Fournier" <scra@hub.org> wrote:

I've always used Seagate or Quantum drives in my servers ... with the recent thought about switching to Dual-Athlon servers, from Intel, and the caveats about both heat and power that I've had, its been recommended switching to Hitachi drives from the usual Seagate ... also, apparently the failure rates are higher on the Seagate's are much higher then the Hitachi ...

Since I can't say I've ever had a complaint (other then the U320 firmware fiasco that Seagate did fix), I'm wondering if there is that much of a difference with the Hitachi's to warrant the extra ~$50/drive ... ?

I can say nothing about Hitachi, but with Seagate's IDEs I've had troubles on 5.x (the last one last night). It's seems to be something about ATA timings; the results are file systems completely messed-up after 1 of 2 reboots; also it depends on firmware revision of the HDD in question and FreeBSD version (e.g. I've used one 40G HDD as my boot disk for a few months on 5.0, but now it ain't working with 5.2.1).

But with the SCSI Seagates I've had no problems, always worked well, even in some warm places.