Is SCSI still the most reliable?

[Frank W.]

The connectors seem to be far better made as well. I'm running a 9 gb hard drive for my OS and any
programs that have to run on C: drive. So far, its more than big enough. Its really noisy though. Sort
of a whine that drills into your head after a few hours. What about a noise suppressing case with a
fan? Or does anyone make an aluminum sleeve that it would fit into, that would muffle noise and conduct
heat away from the drive? And speaking of noise, why doesn't someone make a fanless power supply that
sits outside your case? It could get very hot, and it would't heat up your components.

 

[Arno Wagner]

The connectors seem to be far better made as well. I'm running a 9
gb hard drive for my OS and any programs that have to run on C:
drive. So far, its more than big enough. Its really noisy though.
Sort of a whine that drills into your head after a few hours.

You can get relatively quiet SCSI disks today. Look at the
datasheets.

What
about a noise suppressing case with a fan? Or does anyone make an
aluminum sleeve that it would fit into, that would muffle noise and
conduct heat away from the drive?

Risky. Heat is the primary enemy of disks besides shock. And
deives have gotten massively more shock resistant recently.

And speaking of noise, why
doesn't someone make a fanless power supply that sits outside your
case? It could get very hot, and it would't heat up your
components.

You can get this type of PSU, e.g. from Thermaltake and others.
The problem is that you likely need to use chassis-fans
with them to not overheat the rest of the PC. You can also get
very quiet PSUs with fans today.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

It never was. Its main problem is that its the bleeding edge.

The connectors seem to be far better made as well.

PATA is reliable enough and costs peanuts if the cable does fail.

I'm running a 9 gb hard drive for my OS and any programs
that have to run on C: drive. So far, its more than big enough.

And such a dinosaur will perform quite badly compared with a modern drive.

Its really noisy though. Sort of a whine that drills into your head after a
few hours.

Yeah, once you get used to quiet systems, you wont tolerate noisy crap for long.

What about a noise suppressing case with a fan?

It makes a lot more sense to start with a very quiet drive like a Samsung
and put it in a very quiet case. I dont even bother to put the covers on.

Or does anyone make an aluminum sleeve that it would fit into,
that would muffle noise and conduct heat away from the drive?

Nope, and those dinosaur drives dissipate a lot of heat.

And speaking of noise, why doesn't someone make
a fanless power supply that sits outside your case?

They do, most obviously with laptops.

It could get very hot, and it would't heat up your components.

Thats a small part of the heat in a modern system.

 

[Frank W.]

I'm running a 9 gb hard drive for my OS and any programs

And such a dinosaur will perform quite badly compared with a modern drive.


Yeah, once you get used to quiet systems, you wont tolerate noisy crap for long.


It makes a lot more sense to start with a very quiet drive like a Samsung
and put it in a very quiet case. I dont even bother to put the covers on.

Any recommendations for quiet SCSI drives that are around 20 gb or smaller? Or would anything newer
suffice?

 

[Rod Speed]

Any recommendations for quiet SCSI drives that are around 20 gb or smaller?

Nope, I gave up on SCSI a long time ago now.

Modern IDE drives are much better value and are much quieter usually.

Or would anything newer suffice?

While they are quieter than they used to be, they arent
as quiet as the quietest IDEs like the Samsungs.

When I installed the last Samsung, I had to check that
it was spinning up it was so quiet, and that was with the
case covers off and my head right next to the system.

Its also got a very quiet cpu fan and a very quiet power
supply fan and its lovely and quiet even with the covers off.

In fact the main problem is that its irritating to
turn on the test system because its not as quiet.

 

[Odie Ferrous]

Nope, I gave up on SCSI a long time ago now.

Modern IDE drives are much better value

This is subjective.

and are much quieter usually.

I agree.

However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.

SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.

Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.


Odie

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

This is subjective.

Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.

I agree.

However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.

SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.

Having said that, price and noise are of no consideration whatsoever.

You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.

 

[Mr. No Address]

Any recommendations for quiet SCSI drives that are around 20 gb or smaller? Or would anything newer
suffice?

I've found the Fujitsu MAS, MAT and the 137 GB MAP drives to be quite.
Those are the series I know of that have the fluid bearings. The IBM
drives I've had do this regular head recalibration thing every 10
minutes that was driving me insane. I set up a cron job to touch a file
every nine minutes during work hours. Fujitsu seems to have good
reviews what little I've looked. I like them, but I'm just one data
point. I don't think an 18GB MAS drive will set you back much.

 

[J. Clarke]

This is subjective.


I agree.

However, I won't move back to IDE for my main admin system.

SCSI drives seem infinitely more reliable.

"Infinitely"? You mean that they never fail, ever?

 

[Odie Ferrous]

Nope. The modern reality is that few actually need the
purported higher performance that is still available with SCSI.

Hence my use of the word "subjective."

That is just plain wrong, particularly if you consider the
much higher reliability you get with mirrored IDE drives.

First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives) are going to
be more reliable than a single SCSI drive. Secondly, there is no way
that two mirrored IDE drives are going to be more reliable than two
mirrored SCSI drives.

You'll still get a more reliable system with mirrored IDE drives.

More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?

I doubt it.


Odie

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Hence my use of the word "subjective."

Nope, thats not what the word subjective means.

First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives)
are going to be more reliable than a single SCSI drive.

More fool you.

Secondly, there is no way that two mirrored IDE drives are
going to be more reliable than two mirrored SCSI drives.

The short story is that both configs are reliable enough
and the IDE pair will be much cheaper and much quieter.

More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?

I doubt it.

See above.

 

[J. Clarke]

Hence my use of the word "subjective."




First I doubt that two mirrored IDE drives (modern drives) are going to
be more reliable than a single SCSI drive. Secondly, there is no way
that two mirrored IDE drives are going to be more reliable than two
mirrored SCSI drives.

Define "reliable". Two drives are not as reliable as one drive in the sense
of probability of needing repair. A mirrored pair of IDE drives will be
vastly more reliable than one SCSI drive in terms of probability of data
loss however.

More reliable than mirrored SCSI drives?

More reliable than a SCSI system which costs the same.

I doubt it.

If you think that a single SCSI drive is preferable in terms of preservation
of data to mirrored IDE drives, you need to start looking at the numbers
instead of the lining of your hat.

The simple fact is that SCSI is overpriced for what it delivers for all but
a few specialized applications.

 

[Odie Ferrous]

I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of day-to-day
experience of this topic. In real life, of course.

Of course, you are totally missing the meaning of "subjective."


Odie

 

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of day-to-day
experience of this topic. In real life, of course.

And you're just figuring this out? I have been saying this for years. Like
the old saying, "Go SCSI young man, go SCSI and never look back". There's
no substitute for the performance and reliability of SCSI.



Rita

 

[J. Clarke]

I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of day-to-day
experience of this topic. In real life, of course.

Of course, you are totally missing the meaning of "subjective."

Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and numerous
with SCSI, and I don't notice either (a) any systematic difference in the
reliability of the drives or (b) that there is any single drive that is
more reliable at preserving data integrity than any mirrored pair or array
with parity.

As for the meaning of "subjective", if all you have is an opinion then you
really shouldn't pontificate quite so much about drive reliability.

From what I've been able to gather your "real world experience" is based in
the pattern of busted drives you see coming in from others. There are so
many ways that that data could be skewed that a student in a college level
statistics course could get a term paper out of it.

 

[chrisv]

And you're just figuring this out? I have been saying this for years.

What trolls like you say doesn't carry much weight, "Rita".

Like the old saying, "Go SCSI young man, go SCSI and never look back".
There's no substitute for the performance and reliability of SCSI.

There's no substitute for the clue you lack.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and
numerous

with SCSI, and I don't notice either (a) any systematic difference in the
reliability of the drives or (b) that there is any single drive that is
more reliable at preserving data integrity than any mirrored pair or array
with parity.

This is your anecdotal experience, or _opinion_, which, along with mine,
doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things when discussing a topic
as broad as "reliablity".

As for the meaning of "subjective", if all you have is an opinion then you
really shouldn't pontificate quite so much about drive reliability.

Isn't that what you just did, in the first above paragraph?

From what I've been able to gather your "real world experience" is based in
the pattern of busted drives you see coming in from others. There are so
many ways that that data could be skewed that a student in a college level
statistics course could get a term paper out of it.

You want "real world experience"? Query large data centers (especially banks
and insurance companies), where meeting service level objectives determine
_careers_ , that have _thousands_ of servers with truly "mission-critical"
applications, and see how many are running IDE drives.

 

[Rod Speed]

J. Clarke wrote

I suspect you two don't really have much in the way of
day-to-dayexperience of this topic. In real life, of course.

You're wrong, again.

Of course, you are totally missing the meaning of "subjective."

Nope, you are. Try a dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective

 

[J. Clarke]

This is your anecdotal experience, or _opinion_, which, along with mine,
doesn't mean very much in the grand scheme of things when discussing a
topic as broad as "reliablity".

That which can be calculated is not an opinion. The probability of both
drives in a mirrored pair failing simultaneously vs a single drive failing
can be calculated. You have to make rather unrealistic assumptions about
the difference in reliability between the drives before you get a number
that favors the single drive.

Isn't that what you just did, in the first above paragraph?

Nope. I'm not the one making unqualified claims like "SCSI is infinitely
more reliable than IDE". I stated that that was in my experience, I did
not say absolutely that anything was infinitely better than anything else.

You want "real world experience"? Query large data centers (especially
banks and insurance companies), where meeting service level objectives
determine _careers_ , that have _thousands_ of servers with truly
"mission-critical" applications, and see how many are running IDE drives.

For _your_ term paper, assume that IDE drives are ten times as reliable as
SCSI drives and then calculate the effect on service level objectives of
using those drives. Be sure to consider _all_ differences between SCSI and
IDE. I think you will find that the reliability of individual drives is
less significant than many other factors.

These matters are not as simple as "SCSI is better" or "IDE is better". In
ten years it will be interesting to see what percentage of those data
centers have changed over to SATA.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

Well, actually I have numerous machines running with IDE drives and

That which can be calculated is not an opinion. The probability of both

You spoke of no calculations in the above paragraph.

drives in a mirrored pair failing simultaneously vs a single drive failing
can be calculated. You have to make rather unrealistic assumptions about
the difference in reliability between the drives before you get a number
that favors the single drive.

I made no argument, on one side or the other, about the "reliability" of
SCSI vs. IDE. It's like arguing about what is the "best" ______ (fill in the
blank). There is no correct answer. What is "best" or more "reliable" for
_me_ isn't necessarily the same for _you_.

I merely pointed out that you were doing the same thing as you were accusing
Odie of... expressing _your_ opinion based on _your_ anecdotal experience.

Nope. I'm not the one making unqualified claims like "SCSI is infinitely
more reliable than IDE". I stated that that was in my experience, I did
not say absolutely that anything was infinitely better than anything else. drives.

For _your_ term paper, assume that IDE drives are ten times as reliable as

I'm over thirty years downrange from a college term paper.

SCSI drives and then calculate the effect on service level objectives of
using those drives. Be sure to consider _all_ differences between SCSI and
IDE. I think you will find that the reliability of individual drives is
less significant than many other factors.

But it wouldn't change the fact that the industries that live and die by
_reliability_, banks and insurance companies, do _not_ use IDE drives in
their data center servers. That's a fact, that I know, from personal
experience. Not my opinion, but a _fact_. B of A, Wachovia, State Farm,
Citibank, JP Morgan, Cap One, the Federal Reserve, SunTrust, the list goes
on and on. If IT managers felt they could save 5% of their cap ex by
switching to IDE drives and have the same reliability _and_ performance,
they'd do it... in a heartbeat.

These matters are not as simple as "SCSI is better" or "IDE is better".

In

Neither is "better". But the old generalization, IDE for the desktop, SCSI
for the server, is still basically true today.

ten years it will be interesting to see what percentage of those data
centers have changed over to SATA.

In ten years, SATA will be ancient technology.