RE: Whadda ya do with a failing drive?

I just attended a packed meeting about database I/O, and the
guy mentioned
that SATA RAID is notorious for not meeting spec and other
problems.  He
recommended sticking with SCSI, for what it's worth.

I'll never use them again.

Respectfully,

Adam Phillip Churvis 
President
Productivity Enhancement


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:HOFListsdepressedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:06 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Whadda ya do with a failing drive?
> 
> Over the past coupla months I've had to replace two
drives from RAID
> arrays
> - the drives didn't actually fail but had
"accumulating SMART errors".
> They're 400 Gig SATA drives.
> 
> Anybody have any use for them or suggestions?  SMART
does not mean
> "dead"
> but rather "just possibly going to die, probably -
maybe."
> 
> Since they technically still work I'm loath to toss
them... but I also
> don't
> want to trust my data to them.
> 
> Jim Davis
> 
> 
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
AdobeŽ ColdFusionŽ 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:251492
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Churvis [mailto:adamproductivityenhancement.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:27 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Whadda ya do with a failing drive?
> 
> I just attended a packed meeting about database I/O,
and the guy
> mentioned
> that SATA RAID is notorious for not meeting spec and
other problems.
> He
> recommended sticking with SCSI, for what it's worth.
> 
> I'll never use them again.

I've never seen any published information about that... but
I've meat plenty
of SCSI zealots.  ;^)

In my experience data error rates are definitely less with
SCSI - but data
errors with IDE and SATA are far from common.  Still, in
high-availability
circumstances I'd go SCSI.  However hardware reliability
(and that's what
we're talking about here) is essentially the same - same
platters, heads,
spindles, drive configurations, etc are used in all drives.

But it doesn't really matter.  The simple fact is that just
aren't
reasonably priced SCSI appliances for home use.  I'm doing
media serving and
file sharing - lots of SATA options, few to no SCSI options
(unless you want
to spend triple) and then they don't have the capacity. 
SCSI has remained
an over-priced niche option where all other options have
dropped
dramatically is price and availability.

Looking at a nerd-core site like Newegg and you can't even
get a SCSI disk
over 300GB (and the one 300 GB model is $700).  Even if that
drive lasted
forever it's not big enough and costs too much.  I can pick
up a 400 GB SATA
disk for $100.  Sure I may have to replace one every three
or four years...
but that's exactly why I store everything on RAID appliances
to begin with.
;^)

Jim Davis


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
AdobeŽ ColdFusionŽ 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:251493
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5