My experience with SCSI drives is that they are far faster than ATA for
opening files and data transfer.  They make a Pentium 330MHz computer look
snappy.  I don't think there is any question regarding superiority of SCSI.
Regarding reliability, I still have my old Apple Power PC 7500 with its
original SCSI drive.  In the mean time, I have burned up two or three ATA
drives.  Also, the disk configuring is easier and more sensible with SCSI.

JTNelson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Vierling" <tv@duh.org>
To: <jamesb.au@iinet.net.au>
Cc: "Hauke Fath" <hf@spg.tu-darmstadt.de>; "Andy Ruhl" <acruhl@gmail.com>;
<netbsd-users@NetBSD.org>; <port-i386@NetBSD.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: AHA-2940 UW SCSI adapter problems?


> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 jamesb.au@iinet.net.au wrote:
>
> > I should get myself a book on SCSI as well.
> >
> > Are SCSI disks really all they are cracked up to be?  Is SCSI vs.
> > ATA just a religious war, or are there technical merits to SCSI?
>
> It often comes down to a religious war, and those who don't look at
details
> typically fall back to ATA because of price.
>
> There are technical merits to SCSI.  As for the one that most end users
care
> about -- raw speed of data transfer with non-hotswap disks -- they aren't
a
> whole lot different.  It's when you get into more complex configurations
> such as large numbers of disks, hotswapping, and high user concurrency
that
> SCSI shows its strengths.
>
> The *manufacturing quality* of SCSI, however, tends to be better than that
> for ATA disks, and IMHO, that is what is really reflected in the price
> difference.  This is an artifact of SCSI drives being aimed at higher-end
> workstation or server type environments, whereas ATA is aimed at consumer
> environments.  One particular manufacturer's warranty periods illustrates
> this difference pretty well:
>
>
http://www.maxtor.com/portal/site/Maxtor/menuitem.a14629af82eff9461400585760b46068/?channelpath=/en_us/Support/Warranty%20Services/Warranty%20Periods#ba
re_drive_warranty
>
> Their ATA drives have only a 1 year (3 years for high end OEM only)
> warranty, whereas their SCSI drives all carry a 5 year warranty.
>
> I don't have any qualifying disks from Seagate to comment on their 5-year
> warranty program that does apply to some (but not all?) of their ATA
drives
> currently being sold.
>
> ===
>
> Disclaimer:  My main personal server uses two ATA133 disks in a RAID-1
> configuration.  It's "good enough for me", as I can swap the disks right
at
> home if I need to do so.  (I did swap a disk from the above manufacturer
> this year, when it died after only 5 months of service.)
>
> However, if I were to co-locate the server, I'd likely switch to SCSI for
> the drives' better chances at longevity.
>
> -- 
> -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>