Another reason to buy SCSI

[Pabster]

MisterDuck wrote:

"...which is, in and of itself, proof that there isn't a market for SCSI peripherals. This "market" you speak of is what dictates what is effective and what is not. Since there is no longer a demand for SCSI burners, Plextor is getting out of it."

Now, let's be realistic. The SCSI market has always been small. Why? Price. It is high-end equipment for serious tasks. Plextor went to where the bucks are -- cheap, reasonable well performing drives for the mass market. Period. How many servers do you see with CD-RWs? (And I'm not talking enthusiast servers here.)

"Then you go right ahead and spend twice as much so you can "watch your buffers stay at 100%." How is this an advantage?"

Ever sat there while tasking your machine, and noticed that Burn-Proof was engaging regularly? I assume you realize each time BP kicks in, it delays the writing of the disc. On some machines, we're talking several minutes longer. Maybe you don't care, but I certainly do

"Like I said, Plextor is getting out of making SCSI peripherals because there is:
1. No longer a market for it.
2. There is NO MARKET because there is NO ADVANTAGE."

No longer a market for SCSI? Get real. SCSI technology is advancing, not just the bus itself but the peripherals. They've been night and day superior to ATA for years, and the gap is widening. Today's speediest ATA peripherals are no match for today's speediest SCSI peripherals. And if there weren't a market, why in the hell would drive manufacturers' keep making new SCSI products? Just think before you make such asinine statements.

As for no advantage, you're obviously not in a situation where you need top-notch performance. Some of us are.

"Two years ago, I'd be agreeing with you that SCSI was the way, but that just isn't the truth anymore with desktops. I find SCSI to be a complete and total waste of money for %99 of the people out there - granted, if you HAVE the money and you don't mind wasting it to urk out that tiny, miniscule amount of performance, then go for it. Personally, I think people's money is much better spend elsewhere, but that's just my opinion."

How many servers do you see churning with IDE devices? Why do you think that is? Are they just suckers for spending so much?

I will agree that the vast majority of users' have no use for SCSI. But to say it no longer has any advantage, much less that the market is gone ... that's asinine.

 

[MisterDuck]

<< Now, let's be realistic. The SCSI market has always been small. Why? Price. It is high-end equipment for serious tasks. Plextor went to where the bucks are -- cheap, reasonable well performing drives for the mass market. Period. How many servers do you see with CD-RWs? (And I'm not talking enthusiast servers here.) >>



...and I'm telling you it's going to get smaller. My point has nothing to do with servers and CD-RW - and we're not talking about a server environment (where I wholeheartedly agree that NOT going SCSI would be shooting yourself in the foot).



<< Ever sat there while tasking your machine, and noticed that Burn-Proof was engaging regularly? I assume you realize each time BP kicks in, it delays the writing of the disc. On some machines, we're talking several minutes longer. Maybe you don't care, but I certainly do >>



It really doesn't bother me in the slightest, but I suppose if the extra few minutes you save is worth a couple hundred bucks, then more power to you. It's not worth my money.



<< No longer a market for SCSI? Get real. SCSI technology is advancing, not just the bus itself but the peripherals. >>



No, I said there is no longer a market for SCSI PERIPHERALS. You even reiterated it yourself with the comment that people don't use CR-RW in a server environment - and I see no reason to pay more for a product that isn't as fast (generally) and costs more. I still think there is a market for SCSI HD's, but I don't forsee a future at all for peripherals.



<< They've been night and day superior to ATA for years, and the gap is widening. >>



no, I'd say it's closing - I've had SCSI burners for years (I had one of the first plextor 2x burners, back in the day - talk about memories) and I can honestly say that the IDE ones are now almost on part with the SCSI ones.



<< Today's speediest ATA peripherals are no match for today's speediest SCSI peripherals. >>



Go to storagereview.com and eat your words, brother. This is a lie.



<< And if there weren't a market, why in the hell would drive manufacturers' keep making new SCSI products? Just think before you make such asinine statements. >>



They're not. Plextor isn't making SCSI burners anymore. Go check for yourself. Hard drives? Yes. Peripherals? Not for long.



<< How many servers do you see churning with IDE devices? Why do you think that is? Are they just suckers for spending so much? >>



*slaps forehead*

Are we TALKING ABOUT HARD DRIVES? NO.
Are we TALKING ABOUT SERVERS? NO. We're talking about DESKTOP PC'S.
SCSI provides almost zilch advantage over a comparable IDE desktop PC. However, I'll conceed the point (for the zillionth time, thank you) that SCSI in a server environment makes all the sense in the world.



<< But to say it no longer has any advantage, much less that the market is gone ... that's asinine. >>



Good thing I never said that, huh? Look, excuse me if you didn't understand my comments (perhaps I worded them poorly), but I never intended to say that there is absolutly no market whatsoever for any SCSI stuff ever - we're talking about desktops, not servers, where any current benchmarks and common sense shows that there's almost zero advantage to a SCSI machine.

Cheers,
MisterDuck

 

[Texmaster]

LOL uhoh someone slammed SCSI in front of Pabster!

 

[WyteWatt]

Thank you

 

[rockhard]

I have a SCSI HD rig and have the unfortunate affliction of owning an IDE Burner - Plex 123210TA.
I use multiple Virtual machines which love running SCSI compared to IDE due to the heavy disc IO but when i pop a CD in the IDE Burner it sux to see things come to a standstill until the inserted disc sorts itself out
As soon as i get the money together im going Yamaha SCSI Burnproof Burner

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

Serial ATA

 

[Pabster]

MisterDuck wrote:

"Go to storagereview.com and eat your words, brother. This is a lie."

Practice what you preach. StorageReview runs a wide array of synthetic benchmarks. Unfortunately, synthetic benchmarks do not equate to real world performance. The fact is, the best of today's SCSI lineup - 36Z15, X15-36LP, 10K III - are head and shoulders above anything in the ATA market. Even StorageReview concedes that.

 

[Smbu]

<< The Warrenty!

5 years on hard drives. My big beautiful bastard died after giving his all for 3 1.2 years >>


Just make sure you don't buy an OEM scsi hd(e.g. rebaged drives from Compaq, Dell, etc.) since they do not usually have any warranty, besides the 30day, or so you get from the place you buy it.

And if you buy a hd used from Ebay, or something make sure it has a warranty. I bought a 36GB Seagate Cheetah 36LP 10k U160 hd on Ebay for $150 a few months ago and the nice thing was it still had 4.5 years left on the warranty from Seagate. Although, I've had no problems with the drive it's still nice to have the long warranty.

 

[MisterDuck]

...and I humbly conceed that point - a high end SCSI drive IS faster - but my entire argument is that:
1. That performance is NOT realized in a desktop environment.
2. The average person who is not setting up a server/in a server environment is just throwing away money. I for one would much rather buy a high end IDE solution and spend my money on other components that I think are more critical to a respectable desktop.
3. There is absolutly no reason to have SCSI peripherals (...check those "synthetic" benchmarks on SR.com once again...), other than for people who can't stand loosing a minute or two (which I doubt happens often).

Lastly, I don't agree that Storage Review said anything of the sort - this is taken directly from their review of the WD1200JB:

"Once again we're obligated to point out an interesting fact. The hardware enthusiast market, comprising a significant portion of StorageReview.com's readership, has always pledged it would respond enthusiastically to the world's first 10,000 RPM drive. These folks want the performance of a 10k RPM SCSI drive without the SCSI premium. The WD1200JB, like the WD1000BB-SE, delivers the desktop performance of a good 10k RPM drive according to tests constructed from real-world, high-level applications. If you want SCSI's performance without its price or capacity limits, the WD1200JB is the drive for you."


Just so you didn't miss it: if you want SCSI's performance without its price or capacity limits, the WD1200JB is the drive for you.
I also really liked the "tests constructed from real-world, high-level applications" comment. It's very fitting.

Cheers,
MisterDuck

 

[WyteWatt]

MisterDuck what i am amazed of is that no one believes even storagereview now for some reason. Guess for some people its too hard to accept that IDE is getting to be SCSI speed in the desktop usage. (Remember i did not say sever usage). Do you think thats the case MisterDuck? hehe

 

[MisterDuck]

Since I think StorageReview does (did) the best reviews for storage media that I've ever seen - yes, I find it hard to believe that someone would even begin to discredit them. Their reviews are coincise, accurate, professional, and they obviously went to a lot of work to develop their latest testing procedures, so I don't think I place any faith whatsoever in Pabster's word.

I used to be die hard SCSI, but I just don't see any reason for it anymore in the desktop world. I'm not willing to pay twice as much for less drive space, identical performance, and more expensive components/peripherals. I also love the way people are comparing a $270.00 120 gb drive to a $550.00 36 gb drive that requires the use of an SCSI controller that's going to set you back a minimum of a hundred bucks - not exactly the soundest of all comparisons, if you ask me. Toss in the fact that it runs hot enough to cook breakfast on and sounds like a jet engine spooling up, and I just fail to see the advantages in a desktop environment for just about anyone.

 

[WyteWatt]

MisterDuck yep exactly! IDE is just as fast as SCSI now in the desktop world. But we all know that SCSI is still the king in the sever world too bad. Maybe someday IDE can be there. But i do not even use my HD for a sever so its does not matter much.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

<< MisterDuck yep exactly! IDE is just as fast as SCSI now in the desktop world. But we all know that SCSI is still the king in the sever world too bad. Maybe someday IDE can be there. But i do not even use my HD for a sever so its does not matter much. >>



Not trying to enter a flaming war here... just a simple observation out of 30 OEM's selling 1U servers which seem to be hitting the server market like a storm.

99% of them come with IDE. I guess the server market is heading for IDE... except for the rare places where extreme performance is required. Guess IDE just bitch slapped SCSI in the face and grinned saying we are now cutting deeply into your feild.

 

[Pariah]

"1. That performance is NOT realized in a desktop environment."

For the most part I would agree with that. If all you do is surf the internet and play games SCSI isn't going to benefit you in the slightest. For most desktop users, 7200RPM IDE drives are overkill. A current 5400RPM drive is plenty fast for office apps and gaming provided you have enough RAM. There are people who do do more than just that with their desktops and for them they may benefit from SCSI to different degrees.

"2. The average person who is not setting up a server/in a server environment is just throwing away money. I for one would much rather buy a high end IDE solution and spend my money on other components that I think are more critical to a respectable desktop."

The average person doesn't use SCSI, so that doesn't really make any sense. If you have the money to spend on something, I don't see how it can be considered wasting. Value is in the eye of the beholder. If all someone does with their computer is chat in AOL and buys an 8 drive 15k SCSI RAID array for it, I wouldn't exactly call that intelligent and prudent use of funds, but if they have the money, all the more power to them. As for the second part, most people that use SCSI already have a pretty stacked system in the other categories. I don't see too many people using PII 300's with TNT2 video cards and then Cheetah HD's. A high end storage system should be the last piece to the puzzle for most people, sort of the icing on the cake.

"3. There is absolutly no reason to have SCSI peripherals"

I see no reason to use SCSI optical drives anymore, but SCSI is still the dominant force in tape drives, and I would much rather have a SCSI scanner vs a USB one.

"I'm not willing to pay twice as much for less drive space, identical performance,"

I don't think you would have any problems picking out a system using a X15-36LP vs an IDE drive regardless of what any benchmark tells you. I don't think the difference is night and day, but under no uncertain terms is the perfromance identical.

"Toss in the fact that it runs hot enough to cook breakfast on and sounds like a jet engine spooling up,"

You blew a lot of credibilty with this blind statement. Take a look at the WD1200JB review again and look at which drive came in second on the noise test, a 10k Segate Cheetah drive. Spinning at a higher RPM rate you should expect it to run at least mariginally louder, but it beat every 7200RPM IDE drive except the Barracuda IV. The Atlas 10KIII which came in last at 50dB certainly would not fall into the category of jet engine either. You better plan on getting up really early too if you plan on cooking your breakfast on an 84 degree drive. The Cheetah came in at only 77degrees, warmer than the IDE drives, but nothing anyone would be concerned about.

edit: I thought those drive temperatures were rather low. SR is using a drive cooler. For additional results, look at THG's recent review of the Fulitsu MAN review. The 10k MAN comes in at 1 degree celcius hotter than the WD1200BB and WD100BB and 2degrees cooler than the Barracuda IV. The X15-36LP is a bit more toasty but I guarantee you my drive is not running at 136 degrees F like Tom's, nor is my WD running anywhere near 122 degrees F. So I guess the temperatures should fall somewhere between THG and SR.

Don't waste your time arguing SCSI-IDE with Pabster. Someone could release a 40kRPM IDE drive tomorrow and he would still try to claim that SCSI was the dominant storage leader. He's lacks even the slightest bit of objectivity on this subject.

 

[WyteWatt]

Pariah cool i did not know you owned both the Fastest SCSI and IDE HD! You get the best of both worlds!
Pariah i am wondering what the difference for this kind of task would be on SCSI compared to IDE? Lets say the fastest SCSI vs the fastest IDE sense you have those. Lets say you wanted to copy 8 gigs of stuff on your same HD you have on a SCSI HD. How long would it take the SCSI harddrive to do that compared to the IDE HD? Remember we are talking about the fastest SCSI and IDE HD here.

Any help appreicated
Please reply
Thanks

 

[HouRman]

As an average buster that uses their computer for internet and games... I think IDE is the way to go. An SCSI card is another way to complicate things as is raid configurations. Besides I don't really like the name all that much.. Don't you think of scuzzi when you see the word "SCSI" or do you think of it as an abbreviation like "S" "C" "S" "I".

I think my next drive i'll get will have to follow more under the quiet category.

 

[CocaCola5]

The problem with IDE is you're stuck at 7.2k rpm, transfer speed continues to go up as plater density increases ever more yet the real workhorse indicator "seek/acces time" remains the same for essentially all IDE drives 5.4 or 7.2k rpm.

 

[MisterDuck]

If all you do is surf the internet and play games SCSI isn't going to benefit you in the slightest.

I think you can add playing the majority of games, doing low to mid end graphics work, video editing (in fact, video editing on a SCSI machine is fast but COMPLETELY impractical since those people need 500GB to a terrabyte of storage), 3d rendering, and just about most of the things people do aren't going to be impacted by a high end IDE system at all.

The only place SCSI shines, hands down, is in a server environment or where you're dealing with geographically erratic movement of the arms.

There are people who do do more than just that with their desktops and for them they may benefit from SCSI to different degrees.

I really doubt it, but that's just me. Like you said, different strokes for different folks, but froma pragmatic standpoint, I consider SCSI desktops to be an enourmous waste of money.

but if they have the money, all the more power to them.

I never disagreed - people are entitled to spend their hard earned money however they would like; I'm just trying to argue a practical, pragmatic point.

As for the second part, most people that use SCSI already have a pretty stacked system in the other categories. I don't see too many people using PII 300's with TNT2 video cards and then Cheetah HD's.

Nothing makes me more angry than people with three thousand dollar rigs, outputing to thirty five dollar speakers and some POS monitor, which I've seen all too many times.

I see no reason to use SCSI optical drives anymore, but SCSI is still the dominant force in tape drives, and I would much rather have a SCSI scanner vs a USB one.

Admittedly, I do love my SCSI scanner - it's about a billion times faster than a USB one. You got me on that one...as to the tape drives, I'd say SCSI is a dying breed there - coming from an IT backround in computer operations, all of our tape drives are going to fiber due to length considerations (SCSI doesn't do well over long distances - it has a practical maximum of about 60 feet in an IT environment) and the fact that fiber is just faster and not so electronically sensitive (although the fiber is quite sensitive to breaking or kinking).

I don't think you would have any problems picking out a system using a X15-36LP vs an IDE drive regardless of what any benchmark tells you. I don't think the difference is night and day, but under no uncertain terms is the perfromance identical.

I'd also have no problem picking out my wallet among a group of wallets, as it would be $700 bucks lighter. That, and I'm going to have to disagree - I don't think most people could honestly tell the difference between a WD1200JB and the X15 in the "pepsi challenge". I'll be the first to admit that the X15 is faster; whether or not that increased speed is:
1. worth it
2. even noticable
...is highly debatable in my mind.

You blew a lot of credibilty with this blind statement. Take a look at the WD1200JB review again and look at which drive came in second on the noise test, a 10k Segate Cheetah drive.

I was speaking of the X15, not a 10k cheetah. I made that very clear - so don't accuse me of "blowing credibility" if you're not even going to take the time to read what I write.


Don't waste your time arguing SCSI-IDE with Pabster. Someone could release a 40kRPM IDE drive tomorrow and he would still try to claim that SCSI was the dominant storage leader. He's lacks even the slightest bit of objectivity on this subject.

Thanks for the advice, although I've already come to the same conclusion myself. I'll be the first fool to admit that SCSI hard drives are here to stay, and they're the obvious performance champs (in SOME environments), but for a desktop they just make no sense whatsoever to me.

Nice talking to you.
MisterDuck

 

[sharkeeper]

The biggest misconception of SCSI is the ability to multitask. People will brag that they can multitask with their SCSI system and only have one drive! That's quite laughable. The interface and controller have no impact on the mechanical limitation of the disk drive. The heads can't be in two places at once!

A crude way to demonstrate this is run HD Tach. When the STR bench (graph) is running, go to your quick launch bar and start opening a few programs. I have the best SCSI (X15 36LP) as well as the fastest IDE (WDC 1200JB) in two separate systems and they act identically. The WDC sounds like frozen strawberries in the chopper where the cheetah sounds like 6 mm ball bearings! :Q

Now, if I run a test on drive 1 (also a x15 36LP) and open programs off drive 0, there is very little impact. Trying this with master/slave configuration affects it more than SCSI but still nowhere as bad as running off the same drive. This is where the idea came from that your swap file should be on a separate physical drive for the best performance. Of course with most systems having 256 MB as entry level today, this isn't nearly as big of a problem.

As mentioned earlier, SCSI will always prevail in the server market where minimal downtime is essential. Some workstations may use SCSI due to the special needs/configuration with many drives or external drives, etc.

No question about it folks, time has changed. No hard drive can beat the access time of system memory. With many people getting 512 MB+ ram nowadays, setting Windows NT 5.0/5.1 to use a large disk cache size results in very good workstation performance. If you do important stuff with your workstation, just be sure to invest in a UPS!

Cheers!

 

[rockhard]

One thing i like about using fast SCSI drives is being the first to spawn when a map changes in Quake 3
Could make all the difference if i spawn near all the booty

 

[borealiss]

another scsi vs. eide debate...

again, this is totally subjective to the user. arguing about this is stupid. but i'm going to put in my 2 cents here. (which i guess makes me stupid,

scsi is not for everybody- obviously, not eveyone can afford it, those who can should get it, since they can afford it, but hey, it's their money. there are other ways to shop around for scsi drives too. i can't remember when i bought a retail scsi drive brand spanking new. do a search on ebay. a good ultra2 lvd controller card can be had for around 50 bucks. i got my dual channel ultra 2 lvd scsi controller for that price. i also got my western digital enteprise drive (10k, 18 gig) for 90 bucks new. you just gotta shop around *cough* hot deals forum *cough*. will this always be the case? obviously not, but if you really looked or just kept a heads up something will come your way. even then, ebay still sells great drives at a great price, just know how to shop.

scsi has no performance advantage- yes and no, again, depends on what you do with your computer. if 7200 rpm eide drives with 13 sec access time fit your bill, that's wonderful. for those of us who demand more from our systems because we run a server or multitask like a mofo should get scsi. what people always fail to point out is that the swap file generates a lot of erratic head movement on the hard disk, especially if you've got say a movie encode or a server crunching in the background, regardless of how much ram you have. when the seek time of a scsi drive is 1/3 of that of an eide drive, you will notice a difference. again, this is totally subjective, so what's the point in arguing about it. it's moronic. also, the scsi bus is NOT serial like an eide bus. while the computer waits for another hard disk to bring up some data, it can issue a write/read to another hard disk and not have to wait for the other disk to complete the read. can eide do this on the same bus? no. but you'll only notice the benefits of scsi if you have a lot of hard disks. i have 5 in my system right now. if you're gonna have 1 or 2 drives in your system, stick with eide.

eide cdrws are bad- this is bs. the only reason i got a scsi cdrom is because i got it cheap. if you have a burnproof cdrw drive on its own channel, or on your cdrom channel, this should be every bit as good as a scsi one. but if you have loads and loads of hard disks on an eide channel, your cdrw, burnproof or not, is going to hiccup. but this is rarely the case w/ average users. and for some of us, burnproof is bs. when i burn a cd, i want clean sectors on the disk, not discontinuous gaps resulting from burnproof.

i think that a scsi system is a very feasible option for most users if they shop around right, and will use their system to the fullest. the biggest bottleneck for me in my system is the disk. but then again, i actually use my scsi system.

and it's pointless waiting for serial ata. serial ata will be just like eide drives. no company is going to make a consumer level drive that will impede their sales of higher end drives where they make good margins.

 

[CocaCola5]

To the average user, SCSI will never make sense, they simply should not be include in any IDE vs. SCSI debates. For example, even if SCSI has a $20 premium over a IDE drive, it would still not be a sensible purchase for them, and in fact, they're probably perfectly happy with just a 4200 rpm drive(and on a Pentium 200 to boot). However, IMO, for the typical Anandtech'ers, a SCSI purchase can make good sense(even for desktop). Here the object is like performance return on investment and not necessarily "value". For some this could mean upgrading from a 1Ghz P3 to a XP 1900/2000 or P4, or a 16X cdrw to a 24X. In all, SCSI is actually not that bad a upgrade path(regardless of its performance "subjectivity") because it lasts alot longer than IDE drives.

 

[FishTankX]

One place where SCSI shines is Audio recording. For audio recording you can witness a Cheetah 15K drive whack the crap outa an deskstar 60GXP