Free 64-bit SCSI Controller w/any IBM Ultrastar 36Z15 Purchase @ Hypermicro!

[DestruyaUR]

For anyone who has wanted to get into SCSI but never had enough cash -

More detailed info, along with the code, is available at Storagereview's Site,.

For a limited time, StorageReview.com sponsor HyperMicro.com is offering a free LSI 64-bit Ultra160 host adapter to any order of an IBM Ultrastar 36Z15 by an SR reader! That's a $70 value. Just make sure you mention promotion code SEE SR.COM SITE FOR CODE in your phone purchase or in the comments section of your online order. 68-pin Ultra160 36Z15 drives start at just $129 from HyperMicro, bringing the entry cost of 15,000 RPM SCSI computing to previously unheard of lows!

SEE SITE FOR CODE

The skinny of the deal is -

129.00 for "IBM Ultrastar "Piranha" 36Z15, 18.4 GB, Ultra160 Wide LVD SCSI-3, 15,000 RPM, 3.4 ms seek, 4 MB cache, A/V Rated, 3.5" LP, 68 pin interface, OEM 1-year warranty. (IBM p/n: 07N6830 same as 07N6800)"

NOTE: there are two grades of 36Z15s, 18.4 and 36.4GB flavors - both OEMs w/1 year warranties - both are applicable for this offer. A review by SR.com on the 36.4GB version can be found here.

"70 dollar value" of a "BARE" LSI-Logic U160 card - doesn't come with a cable - I would recommend SVCompucycle for cheap rounded LVD cables that don't especially suck The card carries a 3-year warranty through LSI, and is a single-channel controller using the Symbios/LSI 53c1010 chipset.

Mention "storagereview.com" in the comments section along with the promotion code to get the free card and free UPS Ground shipping!

Oh, and I should take this time to say that I'm NOT a representative of Storagereview.com OR Hyper Microsystems - I just was on the site to check out the forums and saw this. This drive isn't NEW by any means, but it's no slouch, either - one of these in any OS other than XP (which has massive problems with SCSI right now) will blow the doors off almost any IDE drive.

 

[tom3]

that's an awesome deal!

 

[trikster2]

Dolar wise it's an awesome deal as this would normaly cost your $130 + $70 == $200

But performance wise is it an awesome deal?

You still need to buy scsi cables and a terminator ($20 at svcompucycle)

So you are paying $150 but getting:

WD100SE performance (storage review shows the business disk winmark for both drives are identicle)
A very loud drive (source storage review again)
And only 20% of the storage of a 100GB WD drive

So is it really a "good deal"?

If I'm wrong about the performance of the SCSI vs IDE and this drive will give me some magical SCSI performance increase that is worth the extra $$$$ per GB.... ENLIGHTEN ME!


OTOH it looks like the Storage Review benchy's were run on a fairly antique system that does not have a 64bit PCI slot. SO if you have a server board you may get better performance than is possible with a standard IDE solution.

Here's where you can find some information on the Free single channel (not great for sw raid) LSI160 Adapter:

It's a 64 bit adapter but it will work with the more common 32bit PCI bus.

LSI product documentation page

 

[phosphos]

Performance wise, this drive will blow a single WD SE out of the water in burst transfer, sustained transfer, seek time, and CPU utilization. Even against a raid-0 of 2 WD SE (which i have), the SCSI will still blow it out of the water in seek time and CPU utilization.

If i had the cash right now, i'd definately jump on this deal. Install the OS on this SCSI drive, and then use my raided WD SE's for storage. Jesus Christ that'd be fast.

 

[Hummercash]

Originally posted by: phosphos

If i had the cash right now, i'd definately jump on this deal. Install the OS on this SCSI drive, and then use my raided WD SE's for storage. Jesus Christ that'd be fast.

:: orgasms::


.//chris

 

[trikster2]

Sustained transfer was the same as a WD100SE

Think it is because the huge areal density of the WD100SE compensates for the lower RPM.

Does not matter if you are spinning twice as fast if the WD hard dive has over double the arial density (that is it does not only matter how many times you spin in a minute it also matters how much data is covered in a given spin. Well that in other words was not much better was it. Whatever).

Don't recall the burst but with double the cache (8mb vs IBMs 4mb) I think the WD does well.

Only thing I could find the scsi drive doing better was the seek time (something like 12 vs 3) and some other low level benchys but nothing realy translated into real-world BUSINESS performance.

Again: 64bit PCI slot may make a difference and make this all worth while. Any have a 160 card on a 64 bit bus and care to comment.

OR you may have an application where seak time is your major lim-factor. For example a file server serving a bunch of small files, a web server, a data base or whatever.

OR you may have an older computer and are suffering high CPU utilization while transfering files.

So in some cases this may be the ideal affordable hard drive for you.

 

[linuxthinker]

Again: 64bit PCI slot may make a difference and make this all worth while. Any have a 160 card on a 64 bit bus and care to comment.

I have an Adaptec 29160 in a 32bit PCI slot (KG7-RAID), and an Adaptec 39160 in a 64bit PCI slot (Asus A7M266-D). I'll see the difference if I'm transfering from both channels on the 39160. I have 4 drives on each channel.

 

[GrandVizor]

WOW, I dunno if this drive is really that good
I bought 1 from ebay for $139 + $8 shipping. The seller is hypermicro.
Still waiting for it.

Very nice........I guess I'm lucky.

 

[Wolfsraider]

woot my first hot deal at anandtech

after finding that 21 inch monitor today for 99.00 this just makes it sweeter lol

 

[DestruyaUR]

Jesus, not to sound bitter or anything, but someone else leaked this onto Techbargains and stole the credit for it. Christ, some people will do anything to see their name on someone else's website getting credit for reading a post and forwarding it - I liken people who crowd news cameras and act like jackasses.

Just leaves a bitter taste - I know it's right to spread the good news/deals, but this has happened twice now on deals I've posted. To "Eugene," hope the non-recognition was worth it.

----

Re: this drive vs. a WD 1200JB

Anyway, this drive DOES have an edge over SCSI in the fact that SCSI is much better when it comes to multiple reads on a single drive. Whereas opening a file while DivXing will throw a wrench into the mix and make your system sound like a pissed off rattlesnake, SCSI tends to play it a little lower-key.

Secondly, despite the benchmark numbers on SR's review, a 15,000rpm 18.4GB/36.4GB SCSI drive will FEEL much faster than a 7200rpm 120GB, even if SR tested the 1200JB at 20 points higher than this drive.

Additionally, I said before that this is IBM's first-gen SCSI drive. It was the first SCSI drive to hit 36.4GB yields and the second to field 15,000rpm spindle speeds. She's not the fastest pony on the mark, but she'll at least place. I'm personally running two first-generation Seagate X15s I intend on fleBaying towards the cost of a single 36.4GB Cheetah X15.3 Transfer rates between SCSI drives have to be seen to be believed.

BUT, AVOID this if you're using WinXP Home/Pro. MS STILL hasn't fixed the SCSI problems in XP - if you use this, go for Linux or Win2k. Win2k has the same problems as XP, but they're nowhere near as bad.

Also, be sure to research SCSI setup before buying this, it can be a little daunting if all you've worked with is IDE

Glad people enjoyed the info.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: DestruyaUR

----

Re: this drive vs. a WD 1200JB

. Whereas opening a file while DivXing will throw a wrench into the mix and make your system sound like a pissed off rattlesnake, SCSI tends to play it a little lower-key.

Secondly, despite the benchmark numbers on SR's review, a 15,000rpm 18.4GB/36.4GB SCSI drive will FEEL much faster than a 7200rpm 120GB, even if SR tested the 1200JB at 20 points higher than this drive.

Glad people enjoyed the info.

LoL. When I'm using DivX I'm not doing anything else. On the computer.

One thing I have noticed: At least under windows 98 on my cheap ECS K75A MB large file copies (like 2GB worth of files) drive the CPU utilization to 100.

Does not feel like it is at 100 as can still do other things without a hit in speed but it's kinda annoying.

Thanks for the post. Spent better part of an hour reviewing the latest scsi has to offer and catching up from my 2940UW days.

Still tempted to get this drive just for OS and games but afraid the noise will drive the wife out of the room. That 15.3 cheetah with fluid bearings from seagate on the other hand sweet.....

 

[Wolfsraider]

i called hypermicro this morning and they are still doing the free shipping and controller card is included woot

 

[DestruyaUR]

Regarding the "noise" of a 15,000rpm drive:

Put it in a 5.25" HD enclosure with a single or dual fan config which serves as a heatsink for the drive. Coolermaster's DCD-4002 works perfectly, as it housed three SCSI drives fine.

 

[Wolfsraider]

thanks

 

[linuxthinker]

What exactly is the problem with 2k/xp and SCSI? I'm currently using Win2k with an Adaptec 39160, and in the past, with a 2940. Could you point me at a KB article about it? Thanks!

 

[andrey]

I'm not sure who decided that there is a problem with SCSI on XP, but I've been running Windows XP Professional since it came out on Adaptec 39160 and IBM 36LZX Ultra160 SCSI hard drive and didn't have any issues at all. I'm still running the original install of Windows XP by the way =)

 

[linuxthinker]

Well that's good to hear. At least I feel safer now. Thanks!

 

[exisle]

in a lot of the tests I've seen the aerial density is more important than the actual rotational speed, I would guarantee that one of the new western digital drives with 60 gb platters and 8 mb cache is going to be faster than this drive..

 

[Savard]

Wowza! Did you read on storagereview how hot this drive gets? Even with active cooling they said it was too hot to touch. I agree that this will blow away the WD 120GB 8MB drive. I have a Quantum (Maxtor) Atlas 10K II and it isn't as fast as this IBM SCSI, but my Quantum still blows away my WD drive. I still appreciate the mass storage of the WD for games and MP3s.

But the heat and noise are probably too high for my comfort with this drive. I'm still going to wait for the Cheetah 15k.3 drive. Now *that* drive is going to kick some serious ass.

 

[Savard]

By the way, the rounded SCSI cables are indeed cheap at SVCompucycle, but they do not include active termination. Most LVD drives I've seen do not have termination built-in to the drive. So don't forget to get an active terminator! I'm not sure if I would really trust those cables though... they are insanely cheap. I have had issues with dirt-cheap SCSI cables in the past.

 

[Darkcirc]

ok so heres the setup, create a 512 meg file of zero's on a harddrive and time how long it takes the commend to finish. Cheatah 10k vs WD 8Mb ide. Same times.... interesting. Now do the same thing on 2 production servers doing web serving, email, and databasing. 10k still takes the same amount of time, WD takes 6 TIMES LONGER. That my friends is the reason scsi rocks, multiple, random accesses WILL kill ANY IDE drives perfomace, 2Mb, 8mb, or 128MB cache or not. This is a great deal, the lsi card shows in pricewatch as 111, and the drive between 105 used and 145 new. Thanks to storage review and hypermicro for another amazing deal.
dc
ps yes i just did this test on 3 dells servers, 1 production 500sc, one idle and the 1400sc scsi was production in both tests .

 

[tom3]

regarding problems with scsi in XP.. take a look here

i believe there are some fixes out, one of which is to make the drive dynamic instead of basic

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: exisle
in a lot of the tests I've seen the aerial density is more important than the actual rotational speed, I would guarantee that one of the new western digital drives with 60 gb platters and 8 mb cache is going to be faster than this drive..

that is only when you compared sustained transfer rates, which dont mean very much in terms of overall performance if the numbers are close together. with ratational speed, you get faster access times and that is much more important than transfer rates (unless you are video editing).

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Darkcirc
ok so heres the setup, create a 512 meg file of zero's on a harddrive and time how long it takes the commend to finish. Cheatah 10k vs WD 8Mb ide. Same times.... interesting. Now do the same thing on 2 production servers doing web serving, email, and databasing. 10k still takes the same amount of time, WD takes 6 TIMES LONGER. That my friends is the reason scsi rocks, multiple, random accesses WILL kill ANY IDE drives perfomace, 2Mb, 8mb, or 128MB cache or not. This is a great deal, the lsi card shows in pricewatch as 111, and the drive between 105 used and 145 new. Thanks to storage review and hypermicro for another amazing deal.
dc
ps yes i just did this test on 3 dells servers, 1 production 500sc, one idle and the 1400sc scsi was production in both tests .

Darkcirc

Regarding your tests:

The onboard IDE controlers normaly are really weak. On my current 1Ghz system, disc transfers drive the CPU to 100% utilization.

However, using a dedicated promise IDE controler on my ole PPro 200mhz computer large disc transfers never drove the CPU above 20% utilization.

So maybe the performance hit in your tests is partly due to the IDE controller, not the actual hard drives.

Also the newer 10K SCSI drives from seagate have an areal density almost identicle to the 100GB IDE drives from WD. This IBM drive is an antique taking 6 platters to do what the new seagates do in one.

Regarding this deal:

I don't think anyone is arguing against SCSI for a production server.

But for home use (games, web browsing, email, light word processing) what is the point?

What does the average home user do that that requires sustained "multiple, random accesses "

In the ole days I guess that would be usefull when you had to rely on the harddrive as a memory cache? I know the hard drive on my old windows 95 laptop with 16mb of memory used to work nonstop. But nowadays with .5 to 1 gig of memory in a disk cache is not is not accessed as much as it used to be.

Give me an excuse to buy this drive!

Help me justify that the expense will improve the day to day performance of my computer....

 

[peang]

do u guys think this deal still work?
i'm kind of slow, and i think i need another drive so i just want to give it a try.