[rescue] Why is everyone so OSX happy?

[Kevin]

I run SCSI in all my boxen and will continue to do so until
IDE is replaced with something better.  IDE is fine for a lot
of uses, for instance when your storage needs exceed your
need for speed, as in Bill's case, but if i have my choice
i'll stick with SCSI.

The G4 had a 40 gig WD IDE drive, and then the dumpster had a
40 gig WD IDE drive.  Now it's all 320 scsi all the
way (actually the 320 part is over kill, with the G4 current
PCI bus 160 would have been fine, but i already had the
hardware).

Also, i tend to believe, although i have no hard data that
proves this, that SCSI drives fail less frequently than IDE
drives.  I'm not saying SCSI drives never fail, point in fact
i had two SCSI IBM drives fail in a RAID 5 array last week,
but all in all i have seen more IDE drives with issues than i
have with SCSI.

/KRM

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:26:20 -0400
Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 11, 2003, at 05:19 PM, David Passmore
> wrote:
> >>    OH MOTHER FUCKING KAY, OK?  I'M THE ONLY PERSON ON
> >EARTH WHO HASN'T> MOVED TO THE OBVIOUSLY VASTLY SUPERIOR
> >IDE TECHNOLOGY.  I'LL RUN RIGHT> OUT AND GET AN IDE DRIVE
> >NOW, AND I'LL PUT IT IN A PEECEE AND INSTALL> WINDOWS ON
> >IT.
> >
> > Dude. It's stock.
> 
>    Your point?
> 
> >  It's a workstation. For the /vast/ majority of tasks,
> >  it's
> > not going to make a huge difference, hence why you don't
> > see a huge migration to SCSI.
> 
>    Bullshit.  If that were true, my G4/400 with SCSI
>    wouldn't outperform 
> a G4/800 with IDE.
> 
>      -Dave
> 
> --
> Dave McGuire             "I've grown hair again, just
> St. Petersburg, FL           for the occasion."       -Doc
> Shipley_______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue


-- 
keyserver: http://pgp.mit.edu/