Santilli said:
I'm trying to figure out which to go with. Scsi drives are avaliable all the time, cheap, on EBay, and they are fast, and cheap. They have lower capacity, but better longevity, for storage, even if they have lower capacity.... ...Suggestions, ideas??
Yes.
BIG Suggestion #1: Stay away from used E-Bay SCSI drives. Those are fine for someone who needs a spare for a server RAID rebuild, but nobody else -- unless someone is selling like-new X15.3 drives for $5.
Suggestion #2: This one's a little complex in that if you want to push the idea of "future proofing" or "fully modern" or whatever, you'd avoid parallel ATA and only go with SATA. However, you can -- at this juncture -- get the best $ per gigglebyte ratio going with a P-ATA drive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A cheap big 5400 RPM PATA drive in an external USB2 or FireWire hard drive housing will give you plug'n'play storage for backups. Putting an ATA drive carrier in an external USB2 or FireWire will give you further flexibility by allowing this semi-expensive external USB2 or FireWire hard drive housing to be used with multiple hard drives.
If NOW was late-2004 or 2005, I would *definitely* have a SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) host bus adaptor in my computer and a complement of SAS/SATA SCA hard drive bays. One could then plug "cheap" SATA drives in for pure basic mass storage. PATA drive technology would be out-of-step with this workstation architecture.
The previously-mentioned USB2 or FireWire approach wouldn't be as speedy as the SAS/SATA via SCA approach, but it would have one nice ability, though, and that's portability to other people's computers, since they would presumably have USB or FireWire. There's also external SATA (and SAS), but the number of "common" computers with external SATA ports won't be in meaningful numbers for years. External SATA will kick the proverbial fanny of either USB2 or Firewire in the raw throughput department.