Jumped to SCSI, !!OUCH!!

[Pederv]

Over the weekend I picked up a Adaptec 19160 and an IBM 36LZX and an OEM version of Win2K (includes SP2), most money I've spent at one time for computer stuff.
Ran Sandra and my score was almost the same as with my 60GXP. Ran the Disk benchmarks from Winbench99 and scored worse than my IDE scores.
I did a little research and found that the sustained transfer rate of the 36LZX is lower than the 60GXP (as per IBM's web site). My system feels snappier, I figure it's the lower seek times (over 2ms faster now).

I just need someone to tell me I did the right thing, and why I did the right thing. Since I've never "played" with SCSI, I've just worked with it, I could use some pointers.

Thanks

 

[ModemMix]

I run SCSI over IDE for a few simple reasons. First access times are better and it does make a diffrence. Second you can have more drives on a SCSI chain and they dont have to use the channel 1 device at a time like ide does. Third burning from a SCSI HD to a SCSI burner is so very smooth because the SCSI bus is independant of the processor. And the final reason is that a SCSI drive with its faster access/seek times can handle multiple data requests without bogging down. I can load 3, 4, or even 5 apps at one time and they all pop right up, when i load from my ide drives i have a nice wait.

My next project will be a 4 drive raid aray.

 

[kly1222]

I have the same IBM drive as my boot drive, and a WD 100gb 7200rpm drive (fastest ide drive out right now) for storage/video stuff. The 36LZX gets beat fairly badly on on sustained transfer rate tests, but feels faster. Rarely do you ever move 40+ MB/s of data....that is why the 36LZX feels faster in the real world. I have a plexwriter 12/10/32s, and burning from the 36LZX to this drive is heaven. I don't even notice it while it's burning away in the background. Moving to scsi is expensive, and the amount you spend for the benefits, in my opinion, isn't justified....but if you have the money, why not?

BTW, if you really wanted to kick some ide butt in those benchmarks, get a 15X-LP

 

[bacillus]

Pederv, try enabling write back cache for the hdd in the scsi bios for better performance.
by default, ibm scsi drives tend to have it disabled!

 

[Pederv]

Thanks guys, I'm feelin a little better about the move.
A Cheetah X15 would have been nice and I probably would have gotten one if I hadn't just said, "What the f##k, been thinkin about this for a couple years, I'm gonna do it." I couldn't find a local vendor that had the Cheetahs in stock.

bacillus:
Thanks, I'll try that when I get home.

 

[kly1222]

In addition to the write back cache setting on your scsi controller, make sure you have the write cache and the read cache enabled for the drive. For some reason my drive came with the read cache disabled, causing the str graph to flatline at 5MB/s. But I'm pretty sure you have both of them enabled on your drive, or you would really be complaining about poor performance.

 

[SCSIfreek]

well my nickname speaks for all, but recently the noise created by my 36LZX's are driving my GF insane during the night no more midnight gaming for me. other than that everything else is smooth with all SCSI setup. blows IDE outta the water IMO.


--SCSI

 

[KpocAlypse]

Was thinking of going over to SCSI in the new rig. I've got a 60GXP now, but those x15 drives are gosh darn tempting....The 400 buck price tag is kinda hitting me though, it will end up being 40% of the total cost. Its still in the air...

How loud is 15k anyway?

EDIT: and can anyone point out a decent card?

 

[pm]

Pederv, the problem with benchmarks is that most of them are testing how fast you can pull data off of the drive contiguously. This is not the way that any most real programs work. In real programs, for example, you might read a bit of data here, then read a bit of data there, and then maybe will pull a bigger chunk of data from somewhere else. Modern IDE drives have high data densities and thus have high raw bandwidth. But their seek rates are lower, and so in real world situations, where you are pulling from multiple locations, the SCSI drives will be faster. But benchmarks like Sandra and HDTach don't show this, and thus are showing a more idealized situation. Better benchmarks are Winbench, and IOMeter. The former emulates a user doing a variety of commands on their system like spell check a word document while doing something else. The latter emulates a server getting pounded with data requests.

I bought a 36LZX and I had pretty much the same impression - benchmarks like Sandra and HDTach showed that my older 75GXP IDE drive was faster, but at the same time the HD felt faster than it had previously. It took me a while to be happy with my purchase too. Recently a friend wanted to borrow my SCSI adapter to check something, so I ghosted back to my IDE drive for a weekend. It will be more noticeable to go back to your 60GXP IDE after using your 36LZX. For some reason, I notice a slight reduction in the performance that I am used to much more than I tend to notice a slight improvement.

 

[m2kewl]

I use these drives at home and work for over a year, not only are they fast -but no failure so far. Very dependable drives.

 

[lozina]

only thing that sucks is i spent $600 on a ultra2 cheetah 9.1 GB when it first came out 2 years ago... 5 year warranty which was nice but now its sitting in a drawer cause its size is too small for me.

 

[pm]

m2kewl: I agree on the reliability of the 36LZX model. We have a server farm that has approximately 80 machines each with two of these drives that are being constantly (24/7) pounded. And I mean really pounded - they are in constant use running a wide variety of disk intensive tasks. We have seen one failure in 9 months and this drive failed almost immediately implying damage in shipping.

 

[tech]

Yup the scsi setup is nice Pederv. I was in the same boat as you when I upgraded to SCSI. I spent more money on the scsi setup than a geforce3 card. I didn't feel the improvement really untill I really used the drive. Everything was just a tad bit faster. And yes, scsi to scsi buring is nice. Try this test. Copy a large amount of data from the scsi drive to itself. Copy the same data from the IDE to inself. You will then know the difference that a scsi drive brings to you. Enjoy.

 

[poppasp1ce]

<< How loud is 15k anyway? >>



Boeing would be proud.

 

[Sundog]

<< << How loud is 15k anyway? >> >>




<< Boeing would be proud. >>




Maybe on the first generation, but the second generation X15 36LP models are quiet, especially when compaired to the first generation X15.

 

[dowxp]

the 36zx is not fast enough for me. for some reason, according to hdtach, its 30mbs. my scsi controller damn sucks.

 

[Alex]

if its an adaptec controller i wouldnt be surprised

get something better adaptec sucks!

 

[pm]

Bangsilio - that's about right on spec for sustained data transfers on the 36LZX. See the data sheet here at IBM's page.


<< if its an adaptec controller i wouldnt be surprised get something better adaptec sucks! >>

Huh? Adaptec is widely recognized to be the industry leader in SCSI controllers. They have good drivers, good performance and very good compatibility across OS's. What would you recommend over Adaptec?

 

[Goosemaster]

Scsi is great ain't it?


I have quantum Atlas 10kII u160, and Man, that puppy is fast!~ I get 40megs sustained, and access times are always near 5ms.
(The Quantum 10kIII is the fastest 10,000 rpm drive. )

Your drive is very nice though.Reiterating what various individuals here have said, what matters on you boot drive is the access time. For example, I have an IBM 60GXP 40GB HD as my storage, and once I tried win2k on it. Slow as a mule with hammeroids!
Regularly, you probably will not be transfering excessively-large files, so there is nothing to complain about

..and if you weren't content, I'd tell you to get the cheetah 18-36LP, as it gets 60 MB to the gallon, sorry, sec

As for windows in general, I find my drive very snappy, and I can burn stuff while playing games etc.
Just for reference, this was on an Asus P2B-F board with a PIII700...

.....my Athlon XP 1800 and Epox 8HKA+ with 512DDR arrives tommorow. Sandra, eat your heart out!!!

 

[bozo1]

Don't forget that the performance bump you will see with SCSI is due to seek time, not sustained data transfer rates. With Ultra2/Ultra160, you have a huge available bandwidth if you have multiple drives talking at once (Raid) but the transfer rate from one drive will come nowhere near the potential speed of the bus.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

As several others have already pointed out, transfer rates have reached a point where they no longer matter for most applications, but the access times really make the difference. That's the time it takes the drive to find the data before it can start sending it...like latency or lag, if you will.
For the average user, latency comes into play a lot more than sustained transfer rates do.

and pm, noticing performance decreases more than increases seems to be pretty normal, I've experienced the same thing. Going back to an IDE system is really annoying now, though I didn't notice that big of a difference going SCSI.