From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Hoeppner Subject: Re: Recommended pci-e 1x SATA cards. Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:40:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4DA9FED8.2000308@hardwarefreak.com> References: <4DA6CCFE.8020708@crc.id.au> <20110414185304.5bc1cca5@natsu> <4DA6F3B2.8080402@crc.id.au> <4DA7513C.5020505@hardwarefreak.com> <20110415105846.1c4ec630@natsu> <4DA8B91C.8050005@hardwarefreak.com> <20110416111554.09066e73@natsu> <4DA959E4.2080605@fnarfbargle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DA959E4.2080605@fnarfbargle.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brad Campbell Cc: Roman Mamedov , Steven Haigh , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Brad Campbell put forth on 4/16/2011 3:57 AM: > I can't recommend anybody go within a mile of a product that works well > for 99.999% of people, when if you happen to be the 0.001% sample you > don't know you are until the device has silently eaten all your data. Then you may as well not recommend any board to anyone, because few manufacturers of relatively inexpensive boards have QC that high or an in the field failure rate that low, not matter whose control IC they mount on the PCB. Margins on such products are razor thin, thus these manufacturers cut corners where they can. Some cut corners more sharply, such as the in the case where 2/5 boards demonstrated the flaw and 3 didn't. This directly points to a QC problem, not an IC design flaw in the 3132. -- Stan