Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Insane2986, Jan 1, 2003.
what should I do?
PCI IDE card. $25.
Well I was assuming he didn't want to drop several hundred dollars on a host adapter and 18GB 7200 rpm drive.
or a PCI ATA 133 Card
When do those hit the streets? Die, ribbon cables, die.
Abit AT7 MAX2 and IT7 MAX2
Seagate has 80gb and 120gb drives coming, PCnation is taking preorders.
SATA drives suck right now. The Seagate 80GB was just reviewed, and it's not worth it in any way that I can see. Slower and more expensive than it's (higher end) IDE counterparts.
Just have to wait though, they'll get better I'm sure.
How many hard drives can a standard P3 or P4 motherboard handle?
Or maybe the question should be.. how many IDE cards? Can I put 3 or 4 IDE cards in my machine?
if ur gonna put so many, why not go scsi? setup a nice array (0,1) or whatever floats ur boat.
SCSI is not a cost-effective solution for me at my house.. Only reason I ask is because I have 3 or 4 2-6GB HDD's just laying around that I could use.
you forgot about USB and Firewire.
but if you have the HD already, the PCI card is the way to go.
If you are really interested in SATA - there are parallel - serial adapters to run existing IDE drives on the SATA interface. I've got a 3ware 8500-12 running 12 200gb WD's on the adapters and its running without a hitch.
dropping a few hundred ona scsi card and drive?
they arent that expensive. unless you get 15k rpm cheatahs
second point, sata is at this point more expensive and less tested
guess whch camp I am arguing on. SCSI
Atlas 10k 36.7G U320 = $260
Tekram U160 card = $159 (couldn't find a U320 card on there)
Still a lot more expensive than ATA133 and not much faster for single drive/single user setups. And Tekram's a cheaper brand. Adaptec would probably be double. For that kind of money you could have a nice sized IDE RAID5 setup.
so wait, how do you compare a drive with more memory cache and a faster platter speed? oh and something with a theoretical bandwidth limit that is more than twice the speed....
given similar conditions. prove me wrong
i wouldnt say sata is more expensive.. If I'm going for density, I can have an array of 200gb (or even 250gb) drives where each drive costs around $300 (+ $30 per drive for converter and $ for whichever sata controller you go with) compared to that of 146gb Ultrastars or Cheetahs where each drive is $900. Because of such a price difference, I am able to stuff 10TB+ of data in a 4U rackmount for around $20k.
how do you compare the reliability of sata to scsi at this point
granted I support the sata standards fully. but as of yet, I dont trust
let them revise the standard once or twice and find the bugs...
now really, did you trust scsi 1
I agree. I can only speak from experience so far, esp with that 2TB+ box running sata without a hitch. (knock on wood)
so you are running it. what issues have you seen?
I think I'm likely to be correct to say, judging from your posts that you don't have any experience with SATA drives at this point, and thus have little to say about its reliability. Not that I'm any more qualified, but...
But are the drives really any different than ATA133? I thought SATA was just a new interface and all the mechanicals were the same.
Nothing thus far... The only thing that worried me to start with was that the cables dont really 'click' into place, or have any type of retention mechanism. At times while doing some work in the chassis, a quick tap to the cable would expose some of the contacts on the controller. Other than that, the controller hasnt had constant or major fw upgrades (which is a good sign) and the airflow in the chassis (esp when you get up to that many drives in a small area) is most definately improved.