Re: Serial ATA: SCSI Replacement?

Robert Han*** wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
But, according to a Seagate white paper, their SCSI drives are designed for multi-drive systems whereas their IDE ones are not. This includes remaining cool when mounted close together and not causing or being susceptible to harmful vibrations among the drives. The SCSI drives aren't simply the same drive spinning at a higher speed and with a different interface.

That's true, but these advantages have nothing to do with the interface..


There's also the ability to have 15 drives on a SCSI bus.

This isn't a great idea though, as this causes all the drives to share the 320MB/sec bandwidth of the bus.


And don't forget hot-swappability.

SATA has this as well.


Another advantage of SCSI over IDE used to be that SCSI drives normally had a 5-year warranty while IDE drive warranties were commonly only 1 year. But Seagate's IDE drives (and *only* Seagate's, AFAIK) now have the 5-year warranty too.

Given that SCSI is then and Serial ATA is now; does Serial ATA fulfill
that function?

Well, yes, but that is nothing special. The replacement for SCSI is actually going to be SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) which is a superset of SATA and supports some additional features.

I've seen the announcements of SAS, but do the drives actually exist yet?

Yes, IBM is shipping some machines using it for one..

I have six of the IBM x366es and haven't seen any difference in using the 2.5" SAS drivers from systems using the 3.5" form factor.

Hhhmmmmm.... That drive is the same size as in my laptop, if only I could...
.

Quantcast