[rescue] 36G SCA drives still looking

[Phil Stracchino]

Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> Seagate Barracudas are real SATA drives.  I've yet to hear much bad news
> about them.

The Samsung 160GB drive I just bought for vorlon actually beat out the
equivalent Barracuda slightly in performance tests.

> It helps a lot to avoid the low end "desktop" drives, from everyone.
> For example, the Seagate Medalist.  They aren't just slower than the
> Barracuda and Elite drives, they are low quality as well.

Medalists are crap.  They're the disk line Seagate got from Conner.
They don't even make decent doorstops.

> Fujitsu IDE I don't know anything about.  I have three Fujitsu UW SCSI
> drives and nothing exciting to report, except that they seem to have
> higher non-media failure rates than my IBM and Seagate SCSI drives.

Most of my SUN4.1G disks and some of my SUN9Gs are Fujitsus, and have
mostly been very reliable.  I think I've had two failures, one each 4.1G
and 9G.

> IBM/Hitachi desktop (Deskstar) drives seem to have high failure rates,
> but the Ultrastars seem to be very good.  I have not seen an IDE version
> of the Ultrastar.

I think the Deskstar *is* the IDE version of the Ultrastar, isn't it?


-- 
 Phil Stracchino
 Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker
 phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net
 phil.stracchino at ceva-dsp.com
 Mobile: 408-592-8081