• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Scsi Raid Vs Ide

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

zabomb4163

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
http://www.xbitlabs.com/storage/10000-scsi/ :

10,000 rpm Fujitsu MAN3367MP
write max: 42
read max : 59


------------------------------------- total cost 200$ for a 36 gig or 5.55 per gig--------then buy a SCSI raid controller for 300+

---------------------------------------------------------
WD
Average read: 40.6
average write: 23.3
write at begining: 29
read at begining: 49
------------------------------cost 116 for an 80 or 1.45 a gig


conclusion --------SCSI cost 3x for the same capacity. Is one SCSI as fast as 3 IDE hd's on RAID ????????
 

Jon

Just Another Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Location
Lawrenceville, GA
zabomb4163 said:


conclusion --------SCSI cost 3x for the same capacity. Is one SCSI as fast as 3 IDE hd's on RAID ????????

No, but the seek times are about 3 times faster. Reliability and durability are also unsurpassed with SCSI.
 
OP
zabomb4163

zabomb4163

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
but one could purchase 3 IDE hard drives and put them onto RAID3 and achieve SCSI reliabily while still remaining cheaper per gig.
 

Jon

Just Another Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Location
Lawrenceville, GA
Average access and seek are two different things. A 15K RPM SCSI drive has about 3ms seek while IDE is still around 9-13ms.
 
OP
zabomb4163

zabomb4163

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
i think thats the tech spec of the hd. could you find me a real world test showing a 3ms seek time?
 

FunkDaMonkMan

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
If you plan on using Windows XP Pro/Home, you may want to consider that many people have problems with SCSI and XP.
 

SevenSixTwo

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Location
not here anymore thats for sure
Reliability and durability are also unsurpassed with SCSI.

Replace "SCSI" with "drives designed to do so" and I'd agree ;)

SCSI drives are not built well because they are SCSI, but because they were meant to live up to higher standards in the environment where they mostly likely will go into, servers!

Now, zabomb4163, what are you trying to argue? That it makes more sense to put an IDE drive in a modern desktop, especially for someone $ conscious? That's not in doubt by anybody, I think.

And no matter how cheap and fast IDE is you still can't hook a dozen of them up to a computer that's 10 feet away. That's what SCSI was meant to accomplish, not be the better bang for the buck in econo desktops.
 
OP
zabomb4163

zabomb4163

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
I simply started this thread because recently i had flammed by half a dozen forum members for saying IDE regardless of cost was a more effective method of storage.

people in the thread said that IDE was not even close to the performace of SCSI which ive found to be completely untrue. I agree in a server situation SCSI is superior because of its ability to handle multiple request more efficiently.

But in a desktop PC is IDE the best ?
 

DDR-PIII

Disabled
Joined
Feb 16, 2002
Location
6p6
FunkDaMonkMan said:
If you plan on using Windows XP Pro/Home, you may want to consider that many people have problems with SCSI and XP.

yeah the NTFS file system is the problem there. im about 100% sure, but correct me if im wrong, also would it still work with XP Pro and fat32 ?
 

SevenSixTwo

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Location
not here anymore thats for sure
But in a desktop PC is IDE the best ?

It's not best, it's the more rational choice if $ is a factor.

I've dropped SCSI ever since I upgraded from a 133MHZ Pentium. Back then full speed IDE read/write operation pretty much maxed out the processor. That was really the only benefit, less CPU usage. In modern PCs its not even a factor.