SCSI-Why so little storage?

[blubomber]

Ok, so SCSI does not have that little of storage, but why is it that the 15,000 RPM SCSIs are only up to around 72GB of storage while EIDE are approaching or have passed 300GB? Also, why is this the same situation with SATA? I see on newegg.com, that you can get a WD SATA 36GB drive for $145 running at 10,000RPM, or get a WD EIDE 200GB for $194 running at 7200rpm.

So, why are SCSI and SATA not up around 250-300GB in capacity?

[Nighthawk]

I'd say part of it has to do with speed.. When the platters are spinning by at 15,000 RPM, and you can only read/write so fast, you can't pack bits in as tightly as you can on a slower disk.

[vass0922]

Also when you're talking SCSI you're getting into business area.. most businesses will have multiple drives in a RAID Array to get to the 300 GB mark. You get faster performance and redundancy which you do not get from one drive.
Most average size companies don't need a RAID array of 300 GB drives to make up a full terabyte.

[Telexen]

They're made mostly for large corporations...they tend to use smaller drives, but put them in arrays. A 300GB SCSI drive is completely unnecessary....they cost more because it's a better technology...though it doesn't cost any more to ake SCSI drives than IDE.

The WD Raptor is only made in 36gb because it's geared for these corporations as an alternative to SCSI...they can just buy several of these 36gb drives and put them in an array...making drives any bigger is not cost efficient.

[blubomber]

Thank you all for the replies.

I understand that SCSI drives are used in the business sector as part of arrays. I had just thought that SATA was going to be more for the home user or workstation as a faster solution than EIDE but more cost effective than SCSI. So, i kindof figured that SATA drives were going to be similar in capacity as EIDE drives.