Hi Bob,

 BS> For SCSI, we usually use Seagates, with the 
 BS> odd Fujitsu.  Fujitsu's tend to run hotter, though.

The few SCSI Seagates I have had have been fine, nothing to write home
about though. Ack on the Fujitsu's.

 BS>       One of the 3ware's, sorry don't recall the part 
 BS> number offhand.  

I see they do not support OS/2........;-(

 BS> We're in the process of building a new server for a client 
 BS> that will have 5 300 gb SATA drives configured as raid5 
 BS> for data, and two 40gb SATA's as raid1 for boot. (on a 
 BS> dual Xeon motherboard)

A 40GB Boot drive!... what are you putting in that thing? I know, 40GB is
about the smallest drive you can get these days........;-)

Personally, I am getting lazy in my old age, I have sort of convinced
myself that my next "personal" box should have as much HD
redundancy built in as possible, so I have been looking for a reasonably
low cost "generic" Raid controller that would allow me to swap
out a failed/failing HD without having to re-install everything......;-)

 > I have been tossing up moving off SCSI lately, but I must admit I really
 > do LOVE the way SCSI works...

 BS>       Agreed, however SATA has proven to be just as fast, and cheaper.

Agreed on the cost, all IDE is cheaper than SCSI, but I have found that
MTBF's/Warrantees for SCSI are always much better than for IDE, and my
average SCSI drive lasts abut twice as logn as anIDE drive. I see no
logical reason for this other than they are each "made to the
market"... 

I am also still hearing of the odd SATA performance oddity, but so far it
seems to depend heavily on the MB SATA controller itself, rather than the
drive. Avoid SATA "bridges" like the plague... This is more at
the general consumer end of the market, not the professional end.

Cheers...........pk.



--- Maximus/2 3.01