On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Peter Arremann wrote:
> > On the other hand, data reliability is another issue. We have tons of
> > sata based disk arrays and have had no issues yet (because our systems
> > are all on UPS and multiple circuits) but if you don't have
> > infrastructure like that, you are more likely to lose data on a sata
> > based system...
>
> Why do you say that SATA arrays are less reliable? I have used both
> SATA and SCSI raid and have had drive failures on both. Recovery from
> the failures seems to be more a matter of the raid implementation than
> the interface type.
Not all drive support cache flushes and handle them correctly - even with NCQ.
Same for some older controllers also have some issues too.
Doesn't show up as a hardware error but as filesystem inconsistency after a
crash.
As I wrote, we haven't had issues yet either. But sun, sgi, ibm and others are
fairly conservative - sun says they still only ships 500GB disks in their
x4500 for that reason.
Peter.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
