-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
should i go with scsi or sata? (noob question)
- Thread starter avesta
- Start date
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Location
- Madison, WI
If you use 2 drives in a raid 0, I would choose the regular SATA. The raptors will have better performance, but the regular SATA will have great performance in raid 0 and the extra cost to have the raptors vrs the slight perfrmance you will gain is not worth it IMO. I would lean away from scsi only because it is an older technology and SATA does perform very well.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
Two of Western Digital 160GB SATA 8MB cache is my vote.
Yes, Windows will see them as one drive.
Keep in mind with RAID 0 that if you have one drive fail you'll lose all your data. This is a good place to start for RAID information: http://www.raidweb.com/whatis.html
Yes, Windows will see them as one drive.
Keep in mind with RAID 0 that if you have one drive fail you'll lose all your data. This is a good place to start for RAID information: http://www.raidweb.com/whatis.html
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2002
- Location
- Greensboro NC
SCSI is not an older technology, but not recommended in this case. I would stay away from SCSI for this application for two reasons. First, SCSI, done well, has considerable cost and the firmware is not truely designed for single user uses. Second, unless you have a MB with either onboard U320 or PCI-X, the PCI bus has a 133MB/s limitation that can be exceeded by multiple drives on a U320 interface. 15K SCSI does have better disk access times, but for single users is not usually worth the extra expense.
I do recommend the 74GB Raptors, though not RAID-0. I tend to avoid anything that increases disk access times(STR is better) and decreases data security.
I do recommend the 74GB Raptors, though not RAID-0. I tend to avoid anything that increases disk access times(STR is better) and decreases data security.
- Thread Starter
- #7
Xaotic said:
i dont really understand....
1) why is it not designed for single user...if it gets u faster loading times for games and is generally faster on loading..?
2) i was looking at one of the socket 939 mobos maybe the MSI? do they support u320 or whatever is needed?
3)why do u avoid raid 0? i thought raid 0 decreases disk access times by using the speed of 2 drives..
Please clarify im really confused here
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2004
- Location
- Crunching Einstein@Home
1) SCSI is still very expensive and is recommended for industrial, server usage.
2) You will need a seperate controller card for SCSI drives, hence pointiong out why they are not recommended for single users.
3) RAID-0 has downsides as well as upsides. If one drive fails, all data is lost and that is why many people use a seperate back up drive (I have yet to get one).
For your 300 GBs of HD space, I recommend the Hitachi Deskstar series, specifically 2 of the 160 GB SATAs. They are only 104.50 each @ Zipzoomfly with free 2nd day air (same place I got'em and the same drives).
Almost forgot to mention that they are almost dead silent, some of the fastest SATA drives around, and of course the cheapest in price.
2) You will need a seperate controller card for SCSI drives, hence pointiong out why they are not recommended for single users.
3) RAID-0 has downsides as well as upsides. If one drive fails, all data is lost and that is why many people use a seperate back up drive (I have yet to get one).
For your 300 GBs of HD space, I recommend the Hitachi Deskstar series, specifically 2 of the 160 GB SATAs. They are only 104.50 each @ Zipzoomfly with free 2nd day air (same place I got'em and the same drives).
Almost forgot to mention that they are almost dead silent, some of the fastest SATA drives around, and of course the cheapest in price.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2002
- Location
- Greensboro NC
The firmware optimizations in SCSI drives, along with the architecture, are engineered for multiple user access. You can see some of the differences here:
http://storagereview.com/php/benchm...&devID_1=254&devID_2=221&devID_3=250&devCnt=4
This is a head to head comparison of the fastest of four basic types of drives, 15K SCSI, 10K SCSI, 10K IDE and 7.2K IDE. The 74GB Raptor keeps up well with the 15K SCSI for general tasks and end user applications on a single user basis. This changes completely when running the server suite applications where the similarly low level rated 10K SCSI completely outperforms the 10K 74GB Raptor. This is due to the firmware and control optimizations in SCSI. If someone were to hack the firmware for single user optimization and disable some of the data safety features in SCSI(to make it equivalent to IDE), then the performance level of the 15K SCSI would rise significantly. As to being faster loading, what do you mean? SCSI will increase boot time and will have approx the same sustained transfer rate as a 10K Raptor. The primary differences will be in disk access time where the 15K SCSI is about 25% faster due to reduced disk latency.
Generally, if it's not a dual or higher processor system(or in some cases single processor server boards without AGP), it will not have SCSI onboard. There are some exceptions, but getting fewer and farther between.
I avoid RAID-0 primarily for the same reasons that I run SCSI for business, reliability. I typically use enterprise level RAID controllers. The purpose of the RAIDs that I run are reliability and data protection. RAID-0 loses all data in the event of a drive failure. This is unacceptable to my thinking. Anything I save is worth running a CRC on in SCSI by default to ensure that it got written properly. Anything for long term storage is worth both backing up and having some degree of redundancy for protection against the inevitable hardware failure.
There are several different types of speed for HDDs. There is no single value for speed. Rotational velocity, seek times, controller latency, firmware and command set optimizations, drive geometry among other factors play a part in determining the rate at which a drive can deliver data. The type and arrangement of data on the disk makes a large difference as well.
Adding RAID-0 changes the picture somewhat. The STR values for RAID are slightly less than that of 2 drives, while reading larger files. The disk access time(time necessary to find and begin reading the data) are usually slightly slower than single drives. RAID-0 typically works better for larger files, though stripe size can have an effect as well.
http://storagereview.com/php/benchm...&devID_1=254&devID_2=221&devID_3=250&devCnt=4
This is a head to head comparison of the fastest of four basic types of drives, 15K SCSI, 10K SCSI, 10K IDE and 7.2K IDE. The 74GB Raptor keeps up well with the 15K SCSI for general tasks and end user applications on a single user basis. This changes completely when running the server suite applications where the similarly low level rated 10K SCSI completely outperforms the 10K 74GB Raptor. This is due to the firmware and control optimizations in SCSI. If someone were to hack the firmware for single user optimization and disable some of the data safety features in SCSI(to make it equivalent to IDE), then the performance level of the 15K SCSI would rise significantly. As to being faster loading, what do you mean? SCSI will increase boot time and will have approx the same sustained transfer rate as a 10K Raptor. The primary differences will be in disk access time where the 15K SCSI is about 25% faster due to reduced disk latency.
Generally, if it's not a dual or higher processor system(or in some cases single processor server boards without AGP), it will not have SCSI onboard. There are some exceptions, but getting fewer and farther between.
I avoid RAID-0 primarily for the same reasons that I run SCSI for business, reliability. I typically use enterprise level RAID controllers. The purpose of the RAIDs that I run are reliability and data protection. RAID-0 loses all data in the event of a drive failure. This is unacceptable to my thinking. Anything I save is worth running a CRC on in SCSI by default to ensure that it got written properly. Anything for long term storage is worth both backing up and having some degree of redundancy for protection against the inevitable hardware failure.
There are several different types of speed for HDDs. There is no single value for speed. Rotational velocity, seek times, controller latency, firmware and command set optimizations, drive geometry among other factors play a part in determining the rate at which a drive can deliver data. The type and arrangement of data on the disk makes a large difference as well.
Adding RAID-0 changes the picture somewhat. The STR values for RAID are slightly less than that of 2 drives, while reading larger files. The disk access time(time necessary to find and begin reading the data) are usually slightly slower than single drives. RAID-0 typically works better for larger files, though stripe size can have an effect as well.
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Location
- Madison, WI
SCSI has been around longer than SATA, yes? It is an older technology, but definatly not outdated. It is great in server and database use, but I feel unecessary for personal use. SATA is a newer technology that has improved over EIDE. SATA has much better performance/cost ratio.
