Re: SATA RAID

[Mal Lansell <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds like one of those things that may be technically correct but in
practice makes no difference.  You'll probably find that these
vibrations reduce the drive life by a couple of days or something
inconsequential like that.

I thought the reason for "RAID" disks is that they are rated for
continuous, heavy use, whereas other disks expect to be idle or turned
off for most of the day.

Mal



Mark Harrison (Groups) wrote:

>There's been a big discussion about these on another list I'm a member
>of (Sussex Linux User Group).
>
>One of the posters made some interesting points about SATA drives,
which
>are probably relevant to many of us here. I don't claim to be able to
>comment on the technical validity of what he's been saying (for the day
>job, we use SCSI arrays), but the poster is an IT consultant
>specialising in this kind of thing (oh and has a 1Tb+ array at home.)
>
>
>
>>Remember - you can't just stick lots of disks in an enclosure
>>if they're not designed for it.
>>
>>Hard Disk drives can handle high frequency vibrations without a
care
>>in the world, they're designed for it. However, they're not so
>>accustomed  to low frequency vibrations - the exact kind that a
>>large number of disks creates :
>>
>>This is one of the reason SCSI disks are so expensive - they're
>>designed to cope with LF vibrations generated when you put 3+
>>disks in one enclosure. That's also why you can get "SATA
RAID"
>>disks - they're designed for bulk use.
>>
>>Just remember - sticking a large number of cheap disks in a single
>>enclosure can cause problems - if this is a mission critical
system, I
>>would consider SCSI disks, or if price is an issue, SATA RAID
disks.
>>
>>
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>