Generally, I do SCSI when I need many disks, or want to set up a RAID of some
sort.  Its just easier to have multiple disks that way.  Also, my SCSI CD burner
*never* has had a buffer underrun or overrun error.  Almost everyone I know with
an IDE burner has had them.  But for basic drives on a personal system, IDE is
cheap and easy.  There isn't much difference.

In fact, IDE is considered a subset of SCSI.  It was a simplified version of the
protocol to make things a little cheaper to implement, the drawback was you could
only have 2 drives on a channel.  It is this fact that gives us SCSI emulation in
Linux.

Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org
[mailto:tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Yaron
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:04 PM
To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org
Subject: Re: [TCLUG] HDD IO optimizing


  Hi,

On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Florin Iucha wrote:

> 1. What do you need 75Gb for?

jethro at dragon:/home/jethro> df -h /home
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda12             42G   33G  9.4G  78% /home

I do a lot of video capture. It takes up space.

> 2. When all your 75Gb go down the tubes... You'll be sorry you were cheap.

SCSI is absolutely no guarantee of quality. I've had many, many SCSI
drives die on me - more than I can remember offhand. I've only had about 2
IDE drives die on me.

SCSI and IDE drives aren't really that different. SCSI is overpriced for
very little reason. Some say they go through a tougher QA process, but
then IBM Deskstarts (75GB IDE) do too.


-Yaron

--

_______________________________________________
tclug-list mailing list
tclug-list at mn-linux.org
https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list