| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Marc G. Fournier | Jun 29, 2004 11:11 am | |
| Jason A. Crome | Jun 29, 2004 11:22 am | |
| randall ehren | Jun 29, 2004 11:23 am | |
| Scott T. Smith | Jun 29, 2004 11:29 am | |
| Jason A. Crome | Jun 29, 2004 11:38 am | |
| Don Lewis | Jun 29, 2004 12:07 pm | |
| Samuel Clements | Jun 29, 2004 12:11 pm | |
| Erich Dollansky | Jun 29, 2004 9:47 pm | |
| Ion-Mihai Tetcu | Jun 30, 2004 4:31 am | |
| David Sze | Jun 30, 2004 6:30 am | |
| Matthias Andree | Jun 30, 2004 8:50 am | |
| David Sze | Jul 2, 2004 7:10 am | |
| Matthias Andree | Jul 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.
-- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"





