IDE vs. SCSI reliability

[Googer]

Your reasoning scares me, I would hate to fly on an airplane and find out from the pilot they are using cheaper engine parts were picked up at pep boys or autozone with the logic that we have two engines "so what if one fails we still have one left".

 

[Pariah]

Do you work for the marketing department of a HD maker googer? Or perhaps Newegg? Because your obsession with SCSI and alarmest attitude to point of faking numbers and misuing terms like MTBF to try and make your point is kind of creepy if you aren't.

SCSI drives are not infallible. I picked up a couple of buckets full of dead SCSI drives from a friends work place if you need proof. ATA drives are not nearly as bad as you make them out to be either. If you need further evidence look at Storage Reviews' reliability survey. When dealing with one or 2 drives as we are here, you are just as likely to be unlucky and have a SCSI drive crap out on you as you are an ATA drive. MTBF has no relevance to a single drive (1.2 million hours, you think that means the drive will last 137 years? Only if you're retarded), that's not what the statistic measures. Now if you are a corporation who has cabinets full of dozens or hundreds of hard drives getting pounded all day, then the stastical odds of reduced failure swing over into SCSI's favor, and luck is decreasingly an issue.

$300 for a 73GB drive is dumb, when for roughly the same price you can buy a 200GB ATA drive with 2 redundant back up drives, and I guarantee you the odds of one SCSI drive dying are significantly higher than the odds of 3 ATA drives dying at the same time.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I just wanted to say something. The 4 gig SCSI HD that is in my Old Powermac 9600 has been in it since 1997 and still going strong!

 

[desy]

As a sys admin since 86, I'd go SCSI
They are more reliable despite the stories, I've seen both die, lots of BS anecdotal eveidence to go around, but they typically are doing more than your typical ATA drive even in an office of only 10-15 and handle the workload better. If you have a large data requirement then the cost benefit is gonna tilt towards the IDE solution, make the determination.
Even though you are backing up across mutilple drives they are all live drives, one sick virus and you have smoked it all. You need to look to some type of static backup and pref something off-site as well.
JMHO

 

[Pariah]

I have a 2GB NEC and 1.6GB WD ATA drives from 1996 that both still work. I have a 150MB Conner ATA drive from the early 90's somewhere around here, and the last time I checked, it still worked. None of those are proof of anything.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I have a 2GB NEC and 1.6GB WD ATA drives from 1996 that both still work. I have a 150MB Conner ATA drive from the early 90's somewhere around here, and the last time I checked, it still worked. None of those are proof of anything.

Yeah I agree with you Pariah, but I was talking to one of the principal architects today. When I asked about the annual hardware budget I was told "there isn't one" and when I asked how much their data was worth to them I was told "$200,000 per week minimum". Based on that response combined with the fact that I can just drop a SCSI drive into the existing caddy, I'm going to reccomend it. I'll give them both options and let them make the decision, thus absolving myself of full liability.

I'm also going with the USB drive, for simple convenience and futher redundancy for very little monetary input. Would going with a laptop drive give me better shock protection? The plan was for one of my colleagues to store the drive at his home, backing up the server onto it once a week.

The third reccomendation will be for remote off-site storage, which I am negotiating with our new ISP.

I can't thank all of you enough for your insight. These boards truly do contain some of the most knowledgeable individuals out there. :beer:

 

[Cerb]

Uh...200k/week? Even CDN, that's a nice amount.

They'd have to be unbelievably strapped for cash not to let you go with big SCSI RAID!
If you can, you might want to use a 5.25" drive bay for backup drives, using SCSIs that are 'external' in that they fit in a SCA tray.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Uh...200k/week? Even CDN, that's a nice amount.

They'd have to be unbelievably strapped for cash not to let you go with big SCSI RAID!
If you can, you might want to use a 5.25" drive bay for backup drives, using SCSIs that are 'external' in that they fit in a SCA tray.

It's one of the top 10 architectural firms in Toronto, maybe even one of the top 5. It's my dream job at this point.

I already have the "tray" you speak of in the server as far as I know.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Do you work for the marketing department of a HD maker googer? Or perhaps Newegg? Because your obsession with SCSI and alarmest attitude to point of faking numbers and misuing terms like MTBF to try and make your point is kind of creepy if you aren't.

No, I think he's honestly convinced of the fact that IDE drives are crap. He's trying to be helpful, and I've appreciated the insight that you've both given me. You can't have the Yin without the Yang.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Googer
Your reasoning scares me, I would hate to fly on an airplane and find out from the pilot they are using cheaper engine parts were picked up at pep boys or autozone with the logic that we have two engines "so what if one fails we still have one left".

See above.

 

[Googer]

quote:
Originally posted by: Pariah
Do you work for the marketing department of a HD maker googer? Or perhaps Newegg? Because your obsession with SCSI and alarmest attitude to point of faking numbers and misuing terms like MTBF to try and make your point is kind of creepy if you aren't.



No, I think he's honestly convinced of the fact that IDE drives are crap.

No I do not work for Newegg or a Manufacturer of anything. Newegg is a convienent place to get an Idea of what something may cost. I encourage and always shop around for the best price with shipping included before making my purchases.

I have a few IDE Drives of my own, I do not think IDE is crap, But it is not appropriate for buisness use. There is a reason for SCSI's 20+ years of existance and survial. This technology has survived serveral Assination attemts but none were ever very successful.

when I asked how much their data was worth to them I was told "$200,000 per week minimum"

well 1,000 or even 2,000 dollars for insurance on that kind of data is a drop in the bucket compaired to that.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I have a 2GB NEC and 1.6GB WD ATA drives from 1996 that both still work. I have a 150MB Conner ATA drive from the early 90's somewhere around here, and the last time I checked, it still worked. None of those are proof of anything.

I still had an old connor 100 or 200 megebyte hard drive that was still working untill last year when I disassembled it for educational reasons.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: desy
As a sys admin since 86, I'd go SCSI
They are more reliable despite the stories, I've seen both die, lots of BS anecdotal eveidence to go around, but they typically are doing more than your typical ATA drive even in an office of only 10-15 and handle the workload better. If you have a large data requirement then the cost benefit is gonna tilt towards the IDE solution, make the determination.
Even though you are backing up across mutilple drives they are all live drives, one sick virus and you have smoked it all. You need to look to some type of static backup and pref something off-site as well.
JMHO

Take this guys advice, he knows his stuff. Anyone who tells you other wise probably has much less experience with technology (i.e my mother).

 

[Googer]

Yes I know SCSI drives do die but some of you make IDE sound bullet proof, truth is there is no bullet proof storage technology. If there was there would be almost no reason for IDE or SCSI RAID.


I bet most of those antique drives have not seen much action for the better part of a decade, that is why they still work. SCSI Drives are desgned to stay on 24/7 and operate in conditions that would kill and IDE drive much sooner than it's scsi cousin.

I'm also going with the USB drive, for simple convenience and futher redundancy for very little monetary input. Would going with a laptop drive give me better shock protection?

No a laptop drive will not give you better protection as I stated in my earlier post. There are other drives just for rugged enviromental use (i don't mean laptop drives). Besides I do not think a portable Hard Drive is the best solution for data backup; they are too fragile, I have seen several break from just being handled.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Pariah
I have a 2GB NEC and 1.6GB WD ATA drives from 1996 that both still work. I have a 150MB Conner ATA drive from the early 90's somewhere around here, and the last time I checked, it still worked. None of those are proof of anything.

Yeah I agree with you Pariah, but I was talking to one of the principal architects today. When I asked about the annual hardware budget I was told "there isn't one" and when I asked how much their data was worth to them I was told "$200,000 per week minimum". Based on that response combined with the fact that I can just drop a SCSI drive into the existing caddy, I'm going to reccomend it. I'll give them both options and let them make the decision, thus absolving myself of full liability.

Based on what you just said, I will stick with my suggestion of a mirrored pair of brand-new SCSI drives (which will hold all your data, both archival and otherwise, after they pass some burn-in time), backed by a new tape drive with at least some of the tapes being rotated off-site. $800k per month certainly justifies a robust solution in my mind. Ever heard the phrase "false economy?" Eh?

 

[bcoupland]

Why don't you go with a pair of 74GB WD Raptors? They are still 10,000 rpm enterprise-class drives with a 5 year warranty, and much less expensive than a similar SCSI solution. While i'm very informed on single-user computing and video, servers/multi-use environment isn't my thing, so I may be completely wrong, but just trying to help. Aren't the Raptors just WD SCSI drives with a SATA interface shoehorned on? I'd go with the 2x74GB Raptors, a SATA RAID card (LSI?), and a backup IDE Drive, at least 300GB.

This would probably be about 500-600CDN.

 

[Pariah]

When I asked about the annual hardware budget I was told "there isn't one" and when I asked how much their data was worth to them I was told "$200,000 per week minimum".

Based on that budget and those requirements, I'd go with SCSI too. For business, money is the only reason to skip out on SCSI. If the budget is basically unlimited within reason, go with SCSI. If the data is worth that much, you should still go with external backup of some kind, since no matter what kind of drives or RAID arrays you have in that system, the drives can still go down. Yes, laptop drives will be more shock resistent. If you're still worried, you can use some really high tech additional steps like wrapping the enclosure in a towel which will basically allow you to throw the drive against a wall and be OK (though I would not recommend trying it to prove me right on that one...).

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: bcoupland
Why don't you go with a pair of 74GB WD Raptors? They are still 10,000 rpm enterprise-class drives with a 5 year warranty, and much less expensive than a similar SCSI solution. While i'm very informed on single-user computing and video, servers/multi-use environment isn't my thing, so I may be completely wrong, but just trying to help. Aren't the Raptors just WD SCSI drives with a SATA interface shoehorned on? I'd go with the 2x74GB Raptors, a SATA RAID card (LSI?), and a backup IDE Drive, at least 300GB.

This would probably be about 500-600CDN.

1)He already has a scsi HBA (adapter card)
2)SCSI is a robust and proven technology, while sata is still in its infancy and remains largely un-provenen
3)SCSI is full Duplex, unlike SATA which is half-duplex half duplex is best suited to single users (workstations) Being Full Duplex it can prioritze commands (read and write)
4)SATA to my knowledge has no internal error controls, that have been present in scsi since the beginning.

I would possibly consider a raptor for personal use. Its too early to recommend them for buisness. I have heard (rumor) that there may be some reliabily issues with raptor.


a future technology called SAS (serial attached scsi) is something that may be worth looking into at a later time. It will combine the best of SCSI with some of the features of SATA. SAS HBA's will be able to control
sata drives but not the other way around. SAS will offer scalabilty that Current scsi cannot offer.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Googer
Yes I know SCSI drives do die but some of you make IDE sound bullet proof, truth is there is no bullet proof storage technology. If there was there would be almost no reason for IDE or SCSI RAID.


I bet most of those antique drives have not seen much action for the better part of a decade, that is why they still work. SCSI Drives are desgned to stay on 24/7 and operate in conditions that would kill and IDE drive much sooner than it's scsi cousin.

I'm also going with the USB drive, for simple convenience and futher redundancy for very little monetary input. Would going with a laptop drive give me better shock protection?

No a laptop drive will not give you better protection as I stated in my earlier post. There are other drives just for rugged enviromental use (i don't mean laptop drives). Besides I do not think a portable Hard Drive is the best solution for data backup; they are too fragile, I have seen several break from just being handled.

The Hitachi N4K20 is an example of a ruggedized desktop drive designed to take shock and temperature abuse.

I still would not recommend a hard drive as an enterprise backup solution, instead use a removable media solution.

 

[Googer]

I still don't get why such worry over a savings of $300 to protect data worth $10,400,000 (10.4 million) per year or 200,000 a week. At 200,000 a week the $1,000 cost is less than one half of one percent of 200k. Considering that these drives will be in use for 5 years the cost will amount to about $3.85 per week or .32¢ per user per week (12 users). SCSI is a cheap insurance policy to protect data that valuble.

IF this is really the job of your dreams and you would like a long and properous carrer then I would not trust this data to anything else. Protect your self as well as the data, It aint worth saving a few cents. Your boss and your clients will appreciate it.

 

[Cerb]

There isn't. Against you, there's just the issue that ATA drives aren't POSes, and do have a place in business, even in the server room.

Overall, it's that he didn't start the thread saying it was data with estimated an value of $200k/wk, nor that he wasn't tightly budgeted, since we kind of expect moderate value things and admins having to be somewhat thrifty.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Pariah
I wouldn't even bother with RAID 1 for the internal drive, so long as you run daily backups to the external drive.

The problem is, say the drive dies near the end of a workday. The firm would lose the work of 13 people for 7 hours. That's around $1800 in lost productivity (using a conservative salary estimate). They seem to be extremely paranoid about backups in the office.

In any event, you're right, I probably won't need 2 IDE drives in RAID, because I can already RAID the two SCSI drives which will be holding the active projects. :beer:

From your original post you stated that the ATA drive would be used for storing archived projects and rarely accessed. If that's the case, why would you have that day's work on it?

People are giving you prices of old SCSI drives in US dollars. A current generation 73GB 15k SCSI drive is about $500+US, which would be between $600 and $700 CDN.

SCSI drives on average are more reliable than ATA. But neither are immune to a bad batch of drives here or there, or just bad luck.

The 2 ATA drives would likely be more reliable. Anything could go wrong once. Twice at the same time is unlikely.

No, do some reasarch before you make such claims, a quick search of newegg.com reveils current generation 74gb 10k scsi drives from fujitsu and seagate are costing $200-300 usd.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Cerb
There isn't. Against you, there's just the issue that ATA drives aren't POSes, and do have a place in business, even in the server room.

Overall, it's that he didn't start the thread saying it was data with estimated an value of $200k/wk, nor that he wasn't tightly budgeted, since we kind of expect moderate value things and admins having to be somewhat thrifty.

Get it into your head, because i never said that. Read my previous post, I never said ata was a POS.

It does not matter how often the drive is accessed or how little the data is written to, as long as it is powered on it is being used. Even if no one looks at the data or saves anything for a week, I was still used for a week and its usable life has been shortend by one week. Read my previous posts so I dont have to repeat my self.
Thanks

Disclaimer: I own a 200gb ATA hard drive. It is great.
Retail Hitachi

 

[Pariah]

Googer, you're beginning to border on trolling. If you're going to go through the effort of quoting me and trying to disprove something I posted, at least learn to read first.

Also, it's industry standard that drives have a 5 year service life, both ATA and SCSI, so saying you're taking a week off an ATA drive's life by running it a week is rather stupid. Unless you plan on using that drive beyond 5 years, you're not risking anything leaving it running the whole time. They're all designed to work for 5 years within the stated failure guidelines, and then all bets are off.

And as Cerb stated above, our original recommendations were based on the fact, that Sickbeast made it sound like he was scraping pennies together for a budget, and without the knowledge of how much the data he was trying to protect was worth. Those 2 points are of paramount importance when recommending the most approriate solution.

 

[fixxxer0]

consider the maxtor 16mb cahce sataII with NCQ...