12 Aug
2012
12 Aug
'12
5:59 p.m.
On 08/12/2012 08:47 PM, Mouse wrote:
Between the former status quo and the current rush to SATA? That's a
close call, and which one I prefer will probably change depending on my
mood and what's most recently aggravated me. At the moment, I think
I'd prefer the historical state.
What I'd _prefer_ would be for hardware makers to have rolled out SCSI
interfaces on their boards and disks in much the same way that they've
recently been rolling out SATA.
Hm, that may actually be another excuse: if they'd gone SCSI, there's
the danger people would have demanded the sort of performance and
reliability SCSI has historically delivered. With a New! and Improved!
but completely incompatible interface, they can continue shipping cheap
crap and not getting called on it because there isn't the historical
record that says it doesn't have to be cheap crap.
Well. We can always count on suits to give us the least quality for
the highest profit margin. I generally avoid it by not using commodity
trash. My servers all have native FibreChannel interfaces...there's
really no excuse for settling for less, especially at today's
"collapsing economy" prices on used top-end gear.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
I trust you'll forgive a certain amount of cynical
belief on my part
that forced incompatbility in both directions of both hosts and
disks was a major part of what drove the imposition of SATA on
customers. That and NIH are the only excuses I can think of for it.
So you'd
prefer to be stuck with the continued existence of IDE? ;)