Generally, I do SCSI when I need many disks, or want to set up a RAID of some sort. Its just easier to have multiple disks that way. Also, my SCSI CD burner *never* has had a buffer underrun or overrun error. Almost everyone I know with an IDE burner has had them. But for basic drives on a personal system, IDE is cheap and easy. There isn't much difference. In fact, IDE is considered a subset of SCSI. It was a simplified version of the protocol to make things a little cheaper to implement, the drawback was you could only have 2 drives on a channel. It is this fact that gives us SCSI emulation in Linux. Jay -----Original Message----- From: tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org [mailto:tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Yaron Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:04 PM To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org Subject: Re: [TCLUG] HDD IO optimizing Hi, On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Florin Iucha wrote: > 1. What do you need 75Gb for? jethro at dragon:/home/jethro> df -h /home Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda12 42G 33G 9.4G 78% /home I do a lot of video capture. It takes up space. > 2. When all your 75Gb go down the tubes... You'll be sorry you were cheap. SCSI is absolutely no guarantee of quality. I've had many, many SCSI drives die on me - more than I can remember offhand. I've only had about 2 IDE drives die on me. SCSI and IDE drives aren't really that different. SCSI is overpriced for very little reason. Some say they go through a tougher QA process, but then IBM Deskstarts (75GB IDE) do too. -Yaron -- _______________________________________________ tclug-list mailing list tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list