UDMA/100 vs Serial ATA/150 hard drive differences

[Jesus Antonio Santos Giraldo]

Well...

Thanks you SO MUCH!

BTW: To be honest I _was_ considering Hitachi seriously...


Chucho!

>On 02/27/04 15:21, Jesus Antonio Santos Giraldo wrote:<br>>> Hi all,<br>>>
<br>>> While searching to buy a new hard drive I found something
like:<br>>> <br>>> Hitachi 120GB UDMA/100 7200RPM 2MB IDE HDD<br>>> Maxtor
60GB 7200RPM 8MB Serial ATA/150 HDD<br>>> Seagate 80GB 7200RPM Serial
ATA/150 8MB HDD<br>>> etc...<br>>> <br>>> I noticed someones have   :
UDMA/100 7200RPM,<br>>> Others                    : 8MB Serial ATA/150
HDD<br>>> <br>>> What's the diference between UDMA/Serial ATA?<br>><br>>I
assume you mean the difference between SATA and (P)ATA?  SATA = Serial
<br>>ATA.  The older ATA is Parallel ATA.  SATA is the newer technology
that <br>>provides much faster data transfer rates.<br>><br>>> Which is
better?<br>><br>>See above.  Its not really a matter of better than faster.
 As you can <br>>see from your examples above, SATA can give you 150M/s,
PATA maxes out <br>>around 133M/s.  Both are IDE, rather than
SCSI<br>><br>>> Which one is better suited for Linux?<br>><br>>They both
work.  SCSI still out performs IDE, and tends to be better <br>>quality,
and longer lasting drives.<br>><br>>> <br>>> Any help or recomended reading
would be very appreciated.<br>>> <br>>> BTW: If I you have to choose
between Hitachi, Maxtor, Seagate what will you<br>>>
choose?<br>><br>>Seagate, then Maxtor, _NEVER_ hitachi.  Hitachi has the
absolute worst <br>>RMA service imaginable.  Every time I need an RMA from
them I have to <br>>fight with them just to get the RMA for drives that are
still in <br>>warranty (and these are for SCSI drives that cost a fortune
initially). <br>>  Once I get the RMA, it takes them at least a full month
to provide <br>>replacement drives.  I've got a current example to
illustrate:<br>>I had two 36GB SCSI drives fail in a server.  I tried to
use their <br>>website to get an RMA, and the website claimed that the
drives didn't <br>>exist.  I called their tech support line and was first
told that my <br>>drives didn't exist.  I called back a 2nd time and was
told that they <br>>did exist but weren't in their database because they
were originally <br>>covered by IBM (even though they were clearly labeled
as Hitachi <br>>drives), but since they weren't in their database they
couldn't verify <br>>their wwarranty status.  I had to fax them the
original invoice to prove <br>>that i actually owned the drives.  So i
managed to dig up the invoice, <br>>and faxed it in, and then i got an RMA
on January-26 (over a month ago). <br>>   I shipped the drives back to
Hitachi the same day.  After waiting 3 <br>>weeks I attempted to check the
status of my RMA on their website, and it <br>>claimed that my RMA number
didn't exist.  So i called again, and the <br>>first person i spoke to
claimed that my RMA didn't exist.  I went <br>>postal, and demanded to talk
to a manager.  The manager apologized and <br>>found my RMA, and said that
i had to wait 15 business days before they <br>>could provide status on
RMAs (i was 2 days short).  I called again this <br>>week and was given
another story that the drives were very hard to <br>>replace, and that I'd
get a status update directly from their warranty <br>>dept within 24 hours.
 Two days passed with no update.  I called again, <br>>and demanded to know
why i hadn't gotten replacement drives after a full <br>>month.  I was told
that the drives were EOL, and that they couldn't <br>>locate replacements. 
I asked why no one told me that from day one, and <br>>of course there was
no explanation yet again.  They offered to provide <br>>upgrade both of the
original U160 36GB drives to U320 73GB drives, and <br>>ship them no later
than this Monday.  I'll believe it when it happens. <br>>Worst service
ever.<br>><br>>All of the Seagate SCSI drives i've owned have had a very
low rate of <br>>failure, and those that have failed were replaced within
10 business <br>>days every time.   I've also owned a few IDE Seagate
drives, and they've <br>>held up well too.<br>><br>>Maxtor seems to be
middle of the road in terms of rate of failure & RMA
<br>>replacement.<br>><br>>--
<br>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<
br>>L. Friedman                       	      
netllama at linux-sxs.org<br>>Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		   
http://netllama.ipfox.com<br>><br>>  15:30:01  up 82 days, 20:10,  1 user, 
load average: 0.32, 0.29,
0.15<br>>_______________________________________________<br>>Linux-users
mailing list<br>>Linux-users at smtp.linux-sxs.org<br>>Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc
-> http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users<br>><br>