Hard Drives, RAID, SATA, SCSI

StraightPipe

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2003
1,676
0
71
Ok, So I've got my RAID setup that I use for playig movies, and I love it, but i have a couple issues with it.

1. I can only do one simultaneous read/write.

2. My other PC that does the downloading is still running a regualr 7200 8mb IDE drive, and it cant transfer to the RAID quick enough (it would be great if it could keep up with the RAID)

now this second PC is a downloading hog, P3 450, 512 PC100... win 98. all it does is download all day and all night. usually i can get 10-40 simutaneous downloads.

I originally wanted to get a second RAID system for this PC so i could transfer the new downloads quickly, but due to issue 1, I dont think that would be a good idea. my regular IDE drive does fine writing all the downloads, but i want to get my transfer speeds up. (moving 700mb files takes a while, especially if i move 4-5 at a time)

I know SCSI is built for servers, and is good at doing the multiple read/write thing. I've never had any expeirence with either SCSI or SATA. I'm wondering what would be best for my desires.

Ps, am I going to be limited by my 100mb network? if I could get 100mb i'd be thrilled! currently i think it's more like 30. also how can i measure cross system transfers?
 

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
I'd say just stick with what you have. Your 10\100 LAN is probably the bottleneck (the average PC can spit out about 400Mb\s), and Gigabit switches are expensive. It isn't really worth the cash right now to mess with something that works. At least you're not on an 802.11b wireless network :).
 

StraightPipe

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2003
1,676
0
71
when you say 400mb/s you mean that the hard drive can move that fast? i'm seeing more like 30-50mb/s on my IDE, and 50-85mb/s on my RAID. so my 100mb ethernet still has room.

Edit: yes, i definately dont want to change my network to wireless, i've got cables everywhere, and that shtt is slow. I've considered going gigabit, but right now i think the bottle neck is that slow IDE drive.

I want to boost that IDE, but RAID is not option because I need to do multiple reads/writes.

I'm thinking SCSI drive on SCSi card. but i really dont know squat about SCSI or SATA. would either of these be good options?
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
A 100Mb network connection is 100 megabits per second. There are 8 bits in a byte, so that equates to 12.5 megabytes per second, peak. In practice, expect less.

All of a sudden you can see why gigabit Ethernet exists. No matter how fast your drives or arrays are, it all comes to a screeching crawl trying to funnel through that dinky 100Mbit network connection.

Linksys has some affordable gbE workgroup switches in the sub-$200 range and Intel has gbE NICs in the sub-$50 range. If you need to move data fast on a network, that could be a good solution. Of course, instead of spending all that money to beef up your network, I heard of another option. They're making pre-recorded DVDs with the movies right on 'em now! You can just buy them at, like, stores... no need to download them all, or worry about losing them to a HDD failure. What'll they think of next... :)
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,726
45
91
Originally posted by: StraightPipe
when you say 400mb/s you mean that the hard drive can move that fast? i'm seeing more like 30-50mb/s on my IDE, and 50-85mb/s on my RAID. so my 100mb ethernet still has room.

Edit: yes, i definately dont want to change my network to wireless, i've got cables everywhere, and that shtt is slow. I've considered going gigabit, but right now i think the bottle neck is that slow IDE drive.

I want to boost that IDE, but RAID is not option because I need to do multiple reads/writes.

I'm thinking SCSI drive on SCSi card. but i really dont know squat about SCSI or SATA. would either of these be good options?

your hdds are 30-50MB/s and 50-85MB/s, the big "B" means byte and the little "b" mean bit. so your 100mb/s lan is only 12.5 MB/s as stated earliery. the bottleneck is the lan, and if you go wirless that speed is amost 1/2 the speed you are getting now -> 54mb/s and there is the 11mb/s wirelss b.

 

sharkeeper

Lifer
Jan 13, 2001
10,886
2
0
and if you go wirless that speed is amost 1/2 the speed you are getting now -> 54mb/s and there is the 11mb/s wirelss b.

Real world throughput is 18Mbps and 4Mbps respectively.

GigE NIC running 32/33 is also slower, expect 300 Mbps typical. 133 MHz PCI-X GigE NIC much better, upwards of 100MB/S if your source and target are capable of these transfers.

-RBB-
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,726
45
91
Originally posted by: shuttleteam
and if you go wirless that speed is amost 1/2 the speed you are getting now -> 54mb/s and there is the 11mb/s wirelss b.

Real world throughput is 18Mbps and 4Mbps respectively.

GigE NIC running 32/33 is also slower, expect 300 Mbps typical. 133 MHz PCI-X GigE NIC much better, upwards of 100MB/S if your source and target are capable of these transfers.

-RBB-


i was speaking in theoretical maximums :), but i didn't know that GigE is that slow....
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: bob4432
i was speaking in theoretical maximums :), but i didn't know that GigE is that slow....
It's the PCI you get on low-end PCs that's slow. e.g., Macs have had PCI busses that are at least 2x faster than your normal PC's PCI bus for years. Only now are PCs getting faster PCI busses.
 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
Originally posted by: bob4432

Real world throughput is 18Mbps and 4Mbps respectively.

GigE NIC running 32/33 is also slower, expect 300 Mbps typical. 133 MHz PCI-X GigE NIC much better, upwards of 100MB/S if your source and target are capable of these transfers.

i was speaking in theoretical maximums :), but i didn't know that GigE is that slow....[/quote]

You call sustained 100MB/sec slow? Its a helluva lot better than what any harddrive can pull, singlely.

AFAIK, Mac PCI slots are the same as PC. G5 being the only exception, with PCI-X.
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: rjain
Originally posted by: bob4432
i was speaking in theoretical maximums :), but i didn't know that GigE is that slow....
It's the PCI you get on low-end PCs that's slow. e.g., Macs have had PCI busses that are at least 2x faster than your normal PC's PCI bus for years. Only now are PCs getting faster PCI busses.
I'm waiting with bated breath for nVidia's MCP-S southbridges with direct-to-the-Hypertransport gigabit Ethernet on the southbridge. Or for nForce3 Pro 250. :D Me me me!
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: StraightPipe
dare i ask what it costs to get gigbit router?
You need a gigabit switch. MWave has an 8-port Linksys (the one with eight gigabit ports, not the one with one gigabit and seven 10/100) for about $170.
 

StraightPipe

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2003
1,676
0
71
so I'm getting a gigabit netowrk (2 nic's).

my RAID drive is getting max around 85MB x 8 = 680mb/s
what kind of speeds can i get with SATA or SCSI? would SCSI be better for bunches of simutaneous downloads?

any drive/controller card recomendations?
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: StraightPipe
so I'm getting a gigabit netowrk (2 nic's).

my RAID drive is getting max around 85MB x 8 = 680mb/s
what kind of speeds can i get with SATA or SCSI? would SCSI be better for bunches of simutaneous downloads?

any drive/controller card recomendations?
If you have $600 to spend, it doesn't get any better than a 73GB Fujitsu MAS-series 15000rpm SCSI drive (unless you RAID them). A ~$650 LSI Logic dual-channel U320 RAID controller with 128MB of battery-backed cache would go nicely with that.
 

StraightPipe

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2003
1,676
0
71
i'm looking to match the speeds of my raid 0 system (85MB/s max) but it also needs to be able to handle multiple reads and writes (it will constanly have a stream of 10-20 downloads) cheap is good and it doesnt need to be much bigger than 30 gigs (i'm flexable)

SATA or SCSI, i just need something that will meet the above requirements.

Like i said before, i dont have any expeirence with either SATA or SCSI, so any help, ideas, or recomendations would be great.