Desktop 15,000 RPM SCSI Anyone ?

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Excelsior
This talk about contemporary IDE drives nowadays being just as fast in performance is BS.

We have all said the Cheetahs are the fastest. Now do that same comparison with any non-Cheetah SCSI drive. You will see the performance is about the same.

If you go to StorageReview.com, click "Database" up at the top, and start having it rank the hard drives they've tested, I think you'll see some areas where the 15k.3 distances itself very noticably even from its 15k predecessor, the Cheetah X15-36LP (and its competition too).

 

[n0cmonkey]

I noticed the difference between an ATA 100 and U160 10k rpm drive. It boots up slower, but I dont reboot often.

 

[Sunner]

I used to run a Fujitsu MAG(10K) drive on my workstation at work once, it was only a 9 gigger though so I changed to a 20 GB 60GXP which Im currently running.

The MAG was noticeable faster during use that required faster access times, but when it comes to moving large files around, there's virtually no difference.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Excelsior
This talk about contemporary IDE drives nowadays being just as fast in performance is BS.

We have all said the Cheetahs are the fastest. Now do that same comparison with any non-Cheetah SCSI drive. You will see the performance is about the same.

Depends on the benchmark. If you look at the 2 server benchmarks, the highest ATA drive is nineteenth in both. Highest ATA in Office and gaming is 9th, while the 2000JB finished 4th and 5th in the last 2. Of the 4 nonserver benchmarks, ATA had 2 top 10 in 3 and 3 top 10 in one. In every single one, it occupied spot #10 and either 1 or 2 other spots. Including the server benchmarks of the top 60 spots, SCSI holds 51 of them and 28 of the top 30, so it still rules the roost when it comes to performance. Choosing a different drive than the 15k.3 will produce closer results, but definitely not about the same performance, and in some cases no where near the same results.

 

[WyteWatt]

Wolfsraider exactly! Thats the coolest thing about SCSI HDs you can do so many things at once. Where if you do that on IDE you feel your HD slow down. Its nice to have your HD not to slow down either when you almost have it all full. I certainly would not mine downloading 2 things at once, burning a cd, and installing a program without feeling any noticeable slow down. There is no way you can do all of that on IDE HD without having your IDE HD slow down to a crawl or very noticeable.

 

[giocopiano]

Isn't there anything better than IDE around the corner with regard to system usage? IDE drive transfer technology is embarrasing GHz processors, making even them unresponsive on heavy IDE activity. All that power caught in a unresponsive loop when a program wants to spin up a CD for instance. When a program needs time to read and write I just expect that program to run, well, slower, not to jam up my system until it finishes. I don't see how much longer this situation can go on. It makes the best new computers look just *stupid*
Someone please find a solution cheaper than SCSI!
The situation reminds me of firewire and USB 2 a little. People said firewire was better, because it used its own controller but was a little more expensive, whereas USB 2 needs processor power, and is endorsed by Intel. But now firewire controllers are cheap, so why no good cheap alternative to IDE?

 

[servicepack100]

Are any of the SATA drives actually going to be faster than the special edition Western Digitals ? Seagate's latest SATA drive didnt even beat the WD. Also, can an IDE drive ever get to 10, 000 rpm ? I agree giocopiano,
why don't they go the route of a smart media type of permenant storage ?

 

[charlie21]

Originally posted by: servicepack100
Are any of the SATA drives actually going to be faster than the special edition Western Digitals ? Seagate's latest SATA drive didnt even beat the WD. Also, can an IDE drive ever get to 10, 000 rpm ? I agree giocopiano,
why don't they go the route of a smart media type of permenant storage ?

The problem really doesn't lie in the bus, but in the hard drive itself. IDE drives just spin slower than their SCSI counterparts. It's analogous to CD reading speeds. Even your lowly ATA-100 controller has 2-4x the bandwidth that a WD800JB can use for sustained transfers (see Excelsior's post at top for numbers... great post). For burst transfers from cache you can hit the full 100MB/s, but those are best case scenarios. SCSI was also designed to be used in a server environment, IDE was not. That's why IDE chokes when we're doing 7 things requiring our hard drive at once .

I remember reading somewhere that the cost of producing a 10k RPM IDE drive would push the price of the drive to near-SCSI levels.

 

[servicepack100]

I remember reading somewhere that the cost of producing a 10k RPM IDE drive would push the price of the drive to near-SCSI levels.

I'd gladly pay an extra 80 bucks to not have to mess with a scsi controller

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: servicepack100

I remember reading somewhere that the cost of producing a 10k RPM IDE drive would push the price of the drive to near-SCSI levels.

I'd gladly pay an extra 80 bucks to not have to mess with a scsi controller

It's not that scary. Plug into PCI slot, attach cable, set drive's ID jumper, fire it up.

 

[Wolfsraider]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: servicepack100

I remember reading somewhere that the cost of producing a 10k RPM IDE drive would push the price of the drive to near-SCSI levels.

I'd gladly pay an extra 80 bucks to not have to mess with a scsi controller

It's not that scary. Plug into PCI slot, attach cable, set drive's ID jumper, fire it up.

exactly

mine doesn't even need drivers other than the ones provided with xp

plus i get the added use of my mouse when the dvd or cdrw drives are seeking (i got so used to this that yesterday i was loading games on my girls computer that when that happened i was like wtf lol)

 

[WyteWatt]

Wolfsraider lol. I think i am going to try to go SCSI one day to at least try it. If i don't think its worth it i can always use the SCSI HD till it dies and always go back to IDE after that but i think i may like SCSI sense i will beable to do 7 + things at once.

 

[DynaOne]

This is the technical fact about SCSI speed - but in my office we did real world tests timing the sorts of file transfers we do everyday - and the WD120 with 8meg cache beat our Ultra160 10k drives in each of 4 different tests (these took long enough you could time with a watch). The only thing I can think is that it really depends on what you are doing.

 

[Jgtdragon]

Funny thing is I got both Hard drives, the WD1200JB and the 15k.2 Cheetah drive. I haven't install the Cheetah yet, but I noticed my atlas II 10k is more responsive then the WB1200jb.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: DynaOne
This is the technical fact about SCSI speed - but in my office we did real world tests timing the sorts of file transfers we do everyday - and the WD120 with 8meg cache beat our Ultra160 10k drives in each of 4 different tests (these took long enough you could time with a watch). The only thing I can think is that it really depends on what you are doing.

I have a 10k SCSI drive with a peak sustained transfer rate of under 30Mb/sec here, so it might depend on whether you've got recent 10k drives or older ones, too.

 

[DynaOne]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: DynaOne
This is the technical fact about SCSI speed - but in my office we did real world tests timing the sorts of file transfers we do everyday - and the WD120 with 8meg cache beat our Ultra160 10k drives in each of 4 different tests (these took long enough you could time with a watch). The only thing I can think is that it really depends on what you are doing.

I have a 10k SCSI drive with a peak sustained transfer rate of under 30Mb/sec here, so it might depend on whether you've got recent 10k drives or older ones, too.

The test was done on a dual processor 733 Dell Workstation - so it was not a brand new machine. The 10K drives were the ones that came with the machine when it was new.

 

[kidjan]

Originally posted by: servicepack100
Is anyone using a U160 15,000 rpm hard drive on thier windows desktop machine ? If so, is the performance good enough to justify the extra money over a WD 8mb cache IDE ? Any input is appreciated. I'm looking at a 68 pin lsi single channel controller for $89 and 36.4 15,000 rpm HD for around $180 - $200. thanx

My take on it has always been as follows: you don't use a screwdriver to pound nails.

FACT 1:
SCSI is generally faster than IDE in all aspects (IE: seek times, sequential transfer rates, server and application performance, etc.). The gap has narrowed somewhat, but generally speaking the high end SCSI drives are always going to be faster than high end IDE. Also, SCSI is typically takes less CPU time than IDE, resulting in a slight (probably negligable with today's processors) increase in performance. Anyone who doubts this, feel free to head over to SR.com and compare the latest high end drives. It's fact.

FACT 2:
Most SCSI drives aren't that "consumer" friendly. My Maxtor Atlas 10k-III is LOUD. Idle isn't that bad, but seeks are LOUD. Annoying loud. They typically run hot (not always) and loud (not always) and aren't really all that great for extended use in a home environment. On the other hand, my Seagate 'Cuda IV runs cool and almost inaudible - something I don't take for granted, and most people should think about. Environmental noise is a real problem, in my mind.

FACT 3:
SCSI drives don't compete in terms of storage space. IDE drives have a much greater storage due to denser platters.

FACT 4:
IDE drives (not SATA) have limitations concerning the number of devices on a bus. They're also generally not as RAID-friendly (again, not always true, but I have yet to see a SCSI drive that doesn't RAID well while the opposite occurs quite often) and don't come with as long of warrentys.

FACT 5:
If you need server performance, or any performance where you're accessing non-sequential data in high volumes, forget IDE. You need seek time, and there isn't an IDE drive that can hold a candle to SCSI in terms of seek performance. Any server tasks should remain SCSI - IDE drives just don't cut it.

FACT 6:
SCSI is more expensive. No doubt about it.


Honestly, I don't think SCSI is worth it for the typical home user, and even the typical power user. It's expensive, hard to get large amounts of storage, the drives are typically hot and loud (don't expect silence with that IBM drive), and the performance advantage for most desktop applications is negligable. Really, the only place it shines is on extremely disk intensive applications, server situations where you're accessing a lot of data that's not sequentially stored on the platters, and people who need the absolute utmost in disk performance.


I think you'd be better off getting a Seagate or a WD for your home computer and dropping the money you'll save into CPU or video card. SCSI isn't really of any help for most people, IMO - but it certainly has its applications.



In conclusion - you don't use a screwdriver to pound nails. Use the right tool for the right job.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: kidjan

Originally posted by: servicepack100
Is anyone using a U160 15,000 rpm hard drive on thier windows desktop machine ? If so, is the performance good enough to justify the extra money over a WD 8mb cache IDE ? Any input is appreciated. I'm looking at a 68 pin lsi single channel controller for $89 and 36.4 15,000 rpm HD for around $180 - $200. thanx

My take on it has always been as follows: you don't use a screwdriver to pound nails.

FACT 1:
SCSI is generally faster than IDE in all aspects (IE: seek times, sequential transfer rates, server and application performance, etc.). The gap has narrowed somewhat, but generally speaking the high end SCSI drives are always going to be faster than high end IDE. Also, SCSI is typically takes less CPU time than IDE, resulting in a slight (probably negligable with today's processors) increase in performance. Anyone who doubts this, feel free to head over to SR.com and compare the latest high end drives. It's fact.

FACT 2:
Most SCSI drives aren't that "consumer" friendly. My Maxtor Atlas 10k-III is LOUD. Idle isn't that bad, but seeks are LOUD. Annoying loud. They typically run hot (not always) and loud (not always) and aren't really all that great for extended use in a home environment. On the other hand, my Seagate 'Cuda IV runs cool and almost inaudible - something I don't take for granted, and most people should think about. Environmental noise is a real problem, in my mind.

FACT 3:
SCSI drives don't compete in terms of storage space. IDE drives have a much greater storage due to denser platters.

FACT 4:
IDE drives (not SATA) have limitations concerning the number of devices on a bus. They're also generally not as RAID-friendly (again, not always true, but I have yet to see a SCSI drive that doesn't RAID well while the opposite occurs quite often) and don't come with as long of warrentys.

FACT 5:
If you need server performance, or any performance where you're accessing non-sequential data in high volumes, forget IDE. You need seek time, and there isn't an IDE drive that can hold a candle to SCSI in terms of seek performance. Any server tasks should remain SCSI - IDE drives just don't cut it.

FACT 6:
SCSI is more expensive. No doubt about it.


Honestly, I don't think SCSI is worth it for the typical home user, and even the typical power user. It's expensive, hard to get large amounts of storage, the drives are typically hot and loud (don't expect silence with that IBM drive), and the performance advantage for most desktop applications is negligable. Really, the only place it shines is on extremely disk intensive applications, server situations where you're accessing a lot of data that's not sequentially stored on the platters, and people who need the absolute utmost in disk performance.


I think you'd be better off getting a Seagate or a WD for your home computer and dropping the money you'll save into CPU or video card. SCSI isn't really of any help for most people, IMO - but it certainly has its applications.



In conclusion - you don't use a screwdriver to pound nails. Use the right tool for the right job.

I thought I'd add a few remarks to that well-thought-out reply:

2) SCSI is not consumer-friendly I have to counter that with "depending on the drive and your tolerances." I just got done reinstalling Windows, Office and the rest of my software and files on my work computer. If you think SCSI drives idle loud, try one with fluid-dynamic bearings for a while (Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP or 15k.3). Not as quiet as my Cuda4, but not bad. Seeks are audible (unlike the Cuda4 and 5) but civilized, and don't bother me personally, although they might bother some people. Now, my Quantum Atlas 10k... THAT is loud, like a bag of microwave popcorn next to a 3/8" drill (ok, slight exaggeration there) I mean, would you want a Dodge Viper where you couldn't hear the exhaust when you goosed the accelerator...? Hehe...

Heatwise, my Cheetah actually runs cool to the touch, with an ultra-quiet NMB 80mm fan in an Antec case's HDD cage. My Cuda4 gets warmer in my home system than my Cheetah does in my work rig.

Space-wise, I have an 18Gb drive and it's less than half full, even with a full install of Win2000, Office2000 Pro, plus serving the Office2000 admin installation point, drivers, McAfee installation files and some other stuff for our LAN. I don't steal music or movies, and I don't do audio/video work, so it will be a cold day before I need more space than that. Darn, I will have to think of some other excuse to buy a 15k.3 now...

3) SCSI doesn't compete on space On a per-dollar basis, very true. Their platters are often smaller, not just lower density (inside a 15k.3) And how much space do most people have a (*cough*) legitimate need for? Eh?

I don't regret spending the money for my SCSI stuff for one moment. I work with it every day, and I like nice tools. It does more for the snappiness of my system than another 400MHz would do, and it will be with me for a long time.

 

[Wolfsraider]

i agree

but then i never have been one to use the "right" tool for the right job but rather what has worked well and completed the job as quick as possible.

the seek noise is loud (ibm included) but not that loud that i'd trade the performance for a quiet ide drive

for most there isn't a reason to go this route but i love speed especially when it doesn't stop me like ide drives doing one task and waiting then doing another ugh no way am i going back to that.

great post by the way and right on the nail

mike

 

[PCMarine]

Originally posted by: Adul
in most cases prob not. Unless you are doing very Disk intensive tasks.

Yea. Only people running heavy use servers should probably get disks with that performance. Getting it for home use just isn't economical or practical.

 

[charlie21]

Originally posted by: PCMarine

Originally posted by: Adul
in most cases prob not. Unless you are doing very Disk intensive tasks.

Yea. Only people running heavy use servers should probably get disks with that performance. Getting it for home use just isn't economical or practical.

Yeah, but that still doesn't stop me from wanting it... .

 

[littlegohan]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
This talk about contemporary IDE drives nowadays being just as fast in performance is BS.
SR's Renaissance Testing Gamut 2001 - 2 Devices Go Head-To-Head


Device Seagate Cheetah 15K.3 (73 GB Ultra320 SCSI) Western Digital Caviar WD800JB (80.0GB ATA-100)

Low Level Suite 1.0................................. Cheetah 15K.3...................... WD800JB
Analyze Disk Read Service Time.............. 5.9 ms............ 13.9 ms
Analyze Disk Write Service Time.............. 6.2 ms.............. 14.3 ms
WB99 Disk/Read Transfer Rate - Begin... 76.4 MB/sec.................. 49.3 MB/sec
WB99 Disk/Read Transfer Rate - End...... 51.1 MB/sec .............. 29.2 MB/sec

Desktop/Workstation Suite 1.0..............Cheetah 15K.3..................... WD800JB
SR Office DriveMark 2002.................. 578IO/sec.......... 395 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2002............ 505IO/sec................. 375 IO/sec
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002............... 488IO/sec.............. 348 IO/sec
SR Gaming DriveMark 2002............... 706IO/sec.............. 477 IO/sec


Unreal Tournament v4.36............................ 568 IO/sec.............. 395 IO/sec
Half-Life: Counterstrike v1.3........................599 IO/sec.............. 424 IO/sec
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction v1.09b...........503 IO/sec.............. 302 IO/sec
The Sims: House Party.................................671 IO/sec.............. 483 IO/sec
Black & White v1.1.......................................529 IO/sec.............. 353 IO/sec

Ziff-Davis WinBench 99............ Cheetah 15k.3...........WD800JB
Business Disk WinMark 99 14.4 MB/sec.............. 10.1 MB/sec
High-End Disk WinMark 99 42.0 MB/sec.............. 35.0 MB/sec
AVS/Express 3.4......................43.8 MB/sec.............. 28.6 MB/sec
FrontPage 98...........................175.9 MB/sec............178.3 MB/sec
MicroStation SE........................60.2 MB/sec.............. 42.0 MB/sec
Photoshop 4.0.........................20.6 MB/sec.............. 15.3 MB/sec
Premiere 4.2............................32.6 MB/sec.............. 32.5 MB/sec
Sound Forge 4.0......................42.5 MB/sec.............. 60.7 MB/sec
Visual C++ 5.0.........................53.9 MB/sec.............. 43.9 MB/sec

Server Suite 1.0............................Cheetah 15K.3.............WD800JB
SR File Server DriveMark 2002........345 IO/sec.................130 IO/sec
1 I/O..............................................163 IO/sec..................78 IO/sec
4 I/O..............................................224 IO/sec..................83 IO/sec
16 I/O.............................................310 IO/sec.................106 IO/sec
64 I/O.............................................364 IO/sec.................123 IO/sec
SR Web Server DriveMark 2002......342 IO/sec..................128 IO/sec
1 I/O...............................................165 IO/sec..................70 IO/sec
4 I/O...............................................214 IO/sec...................79 IO/sec
16 I/O.............................................289 IO/sec..................104 IO/sec
64 I/O.............................................355 IO/sec..................126 IO/sec

Environmental Suite 1.0.....Cheetah 15K.3.................WD800JB
Idle Noise..........................45.1 dB/A@0.7"..............45.0 dB/A@0.7"
Net Temperature................25.1 Celsius...................15.3 Celsius
Ambient Temperature..........24.8 Celsius..................25.0 Celsius
Drive Temperature..............49.9 Celsius....................40.3 Celsius

the 800JB is not the fastest ide drive avaliavle

compare it to the 250 gb wd drive that will be released this month
the 80gb platter should be faster

 

[giocopiano]

For those with dual processors, does IDE activity immobilise the whole computer for moments or does the free processor keep it running smoothly?

 

[Ilmater]

Just a quick update for anyone reading this thread, my LSI Logic card was flat-out not being read by my motherboard, so I got rid of it. I now have an Adaptec 29160 and it runs like a dream. There are VERY noticable differences between the performance of this drive (IBM Ultrastar 15k 18GB) and my old WD 800JB. This is especially apparent when I'm installing programs from my hard drive or LARGE windows updates. I installed Win 2k (with built-in SP3) last night and updated to evil IE 6.1 in no time. It took longer to download (on my 3.3mbps connection) than it did to download, and that was most definitely NOT the case when I ran on the WD. I'm SCSI for life here.

 

[Whitedog]

Buying SCSI for your computer is like buying BMW for your transportation... You do it "if you have the money" Otherwise, you drive what will "get you there"

That's about as plain as I can say it.

Here's a hint: I know several people who drive a BMW just to impress people... they really don't have the money to drive the car, in fact, they could have spent there money on other "worthwhile" things.

In OTHER WORDS... Unless you can afford an NForce2 Mobo with a GB of PC3200 CL2 memory and an ATI9700 Pro video Card and a 21" Monitor...etc...etc... you don't really have any reason to be buying SCSI hard drives...

Are BMW Nice Cars and "perform better" than the average car? HELL YES!
Would I drive one if I had the money and could afford all the other things I need? HELL YES!

Does this answer your question servicepack100?