SCSI Reliability vs. IDE/SATA Reliability

[bob4432]

are scsi hdds really that much more reliable than ide/sata drives? why? are they built better? better error correction?

also, i know, all hdds will fail, but when they are running would one, theoretically, experience less errors/corruption with a scsi setup?

 

[InlineFive]

SCSI is built using a lot higher quality materials and standards. It is built for server environments which is why it can work 24/7 for years without failing.

-Por

 

[Alptraum]

As PorBleemo mentions SCSI is built to higher tolerances. Its MTBF is almost always way higher then IDE. I have been running large networks for around 9 years now and I have never nor will I (unless something new comes out) run a server with anything but SCSI. Not only are they more reliable they destroy IDE drives performance wise when it comes to many users accessing it at once. Multiple operations, reliability and speed are SCSI's main qualities.

 

[beatle]

Most definitely more reliable than IDE/SATA. There's a reason that all SCSI drives come with 5 year warranties.

 

[bob4432]

good to hear, i just ordered a u160, 10Krpm, 8MB Cache 9GB maxtor drive, cable and am going to get a lsi u160 card from newegg, just to try scsi out. not bad to try it out for ~$110. if all works well, i will be switching all my system drives to scsi 🙂

thanks for the info peeps!!!!

 

[mechBgon]

10k Quantum/Maxtor 9GB drive, eh? You forgot the earplugs 🙂 But if you like the responsiveness of SCSI, you can go forward with a nice Cheetah 15k.3 later and get gobs more performance with far less noise.

 

[bob4432]

noise doesn't bother, me in fact, i sit about a foot away from 2 machines, each with atleat 4 fans each and the i have 2 other machines in the room, again each with 2-4 fans each and most have 2-3 hdds already.

this is just a test run, if all works out, i will go scsi with the larger 36-73GB drives, maybe even 15k rpm, but i have read they are extremely hot and the heat would be more of a bother, i live in the desert. my computer room is already 6-10F warmer than the rest of my place.

is there a huge performance increase going to u320 from u160? i know theoretically it would be double, but in the real world is it?

 

[CQuinn]

is there a huge performance increase going to u320 from u160?

No, it is similar to the difference between ATA-100 and SATA-150.

There are definite benefits built into the technology, but no drives have been developed yet that
really push into the areas of performance they cover.

The advantages of U320 start to show if you are running multiple u320 drives in an environment
that places constant demand on all devices for file i/o.

 

[CQuinn]

Another reason SCSI is considered more reliable than IDE is because IDE drives have
been built more as a commodity product. The expectation is that you will have bought
a new IDE drive long before the old one wears out.

Aside from the performance issues, for the price of a new SCSI drive from five years ago,
I could have bought a similar sized IDE drive, and upgraded it to a bigger drive at least
once within the warranty period of the SCSI drive and still come out ahead on cost.

 

[SUOrangeman]

I don't think you can throw all of SATA into the IDE boat right now. It's just too new. And let's not forget that Raptors have 5-year warranties.

-SUO

 

[Soulkeeper]

i would say scsi
but the gap is shrinking fast

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
i would say scsi
but the gap is shrinking fast

In terms of quality/reliability, I'd say the gap is widening if anything.