SATA vs. SCSI

[X4Nt3R1UM]

Hi,

To all hardware Gurus out there..

Serial ATA (SATA) Drives claim that they are faster than IDE Drives with regards to data transfer (is it really true). But what if we compare them to SCSI Drives, which is faster ?

scenario A: SCSI Hard Drive connected on an onboard SCSI controller vs. a SATA Drive connected to SATA controller sitting on a PCI slot

scenario B: SCSI Hard Drive connected on a (PCI) SCSI contoller vs. a SATA Drive connected to SATA controller sitting on a PCI slot.


regards

x4nt3r1um

 

[Double Trouble]

The reality is that it all depends on what you're doing with it. It's not just "which one is faster", it's more "which one is faster for this particular use?". Right now, the SATA stuff is really not much different than the 'regular' PATA drives - just a different interface. If you're in a multiuser environment (such as a server) then SCSI is usually the best choice, given it's reliability and mature state. Some of the newer SATA drives (like the raptor) come close to SCSI levels, stricly looking at one specific type of performance is not the right way -- you have to find out how a drive (or drive type) performs in your situation.

For your scenarios:

A) Depends on which SCSI drive and which SCSI controller.
B) Depends on which SCSI drive and which SCSI controller

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: X4Nt3R1UM
Hi,

To all hardware Gurus out there..

Serial ATA (SATA) Drives claim that they are faster than IDE Drives with regards to data transfer (is it really true). But what if we compare them to SCSI Drives, which is faster ?

WD Raptors are very close to nice SCSI drives. Seagate is making their new 8MB cache drives SATA only, I believe, making it technically true for them.
Overall, however, no. Most are just the PATA drives converted to SATA...no performance difference.

scenario A: SCSI Hard Drive connected on an onboard SCSI controller vs. a SATA Drive connected to SATA controller sitting on a PCI slot

...assuming Raptors, since they are the ones up to SCSI standards, it's all about which controller. Same with scenario B.

scenario B: SCSI Hard Drive connected on a (PCI) SCSI contoller vs. a SATA Drive connected to SATA controller sitting on a PCI slot.


regards

x4nt3r1um

If you've got the $ for SCSI, go SCSI.
SCSI: Expensive, but cannot be beat, esp. going with Seagate. It ain't expensive for nothing. Seagate and Maxtor SCSI drives are known for being very fast (esp. Seagate) and amazingly reliable.
High-end SATA: Raptors are about as good, and you can get a motherboard with a good controller pretty cheap. If saving $100-200 to get one or two Raptors vs. the same size SCSI is important, Raptors. Raptors are too new to know about reliability compared to SCSI drives, but I imagine it would be similar, else they wouldn't offer a five-year warranty. No garuntees, though.
Low-end SATA: Many drives are the sam as their PATA versions, but with the less cluttering connentors. Kinda nice, that.
PATA: Same as the low-end SATA, and cannot be beat for storage. Even with RAID 1, it's cheaper than SCSI...but not oh-so-god-damned-speedy .

 

[EeyoreX]

In general, I agree, that it depends on the controller and drive. However, at this time SCSI is the faster and obviously proven technology. Since most SATA drivers are just "re-interfaced" PATA drives AND since most SATA contollers are still hobbled by the PCI bus speed there is no real differance between SATA and PATA at this time. SCSI, on the other hand, is much faster than IDE in certain applications, it really depends on what you are doing.

Having said that, I feel I must disagree with the "SCSI is cheaper" theory.

Doing a PriceWatch search I found:

Western Digital Raptor 36GB: $134.99
Maxtor ATLAS 73GB: $153.00

Granted, you also have to spring for a contoller for SCSI (you may or may not have SATA on board on your current motherboard. Also, most current motherboards support two SATA drives and limted RAID functionality. Adding more drives or RAID will require a SATA controller as well.) but as you can see from this comparison, you get about twice the capacity for only about $20.00 more with the SCSI drive. Plus you get the reliability of a proven technology.

\Dan

 

[lameaway]

Thats interesting - most 10krpm high capacity SCSI drives i've seen lately are in the $300+ range. I had no idea such a drive could be had for so cheap... whats wrong with it?

 

[FullRoast]

Originally posted by: lameaway
Thats interesting - most 10krpm high capacity SCSI drives i've seen lately are in the $300+ range. I had no idea such a drive could be had for so cheap... whats wrong with it?

Old technology, Ultra 160 interface, slower than Raptors.... bigger, though

 

[Acanthus]

Seagate 15k.3s will kill any SATA device with a good controller. No question.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: FullRoast

Originally posted by: lameaway
Thats interesting - most 10krpm high capacity SCSI drives i've seen lately are in the $300+ range. I had no idea such a drive could be had for so cheap... whats wrong with it?

Old technology, Ultra 160 interface, slower than Raptors.... bigger, though

Hahaha... U160 slower than a Raptor? I'm sorry, but the Raptor is probably on par with 2nd or 3rd generation 10K U160 drives. The newer generation wipe them out, and I wont even go into what the 15K U160 drives can do to it. The best SCSI drives are Fijitsu MAS (quieter than a Raptor too!), Seagate 15.3, Maxtor Atlas IV 15K.

Not to mention SCSI has many years of proven relaible whereas this Raptor is new.

 

[FullRoast]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: FullRoast

Originally posted by: lameaway
Thats interesting - most 10krpm high capacity SCSI drives i've seen lately are in the $300+ range. I had no idea such a drive could be had for so cheap... whats wrong with it?

Old technology, Ultra 160 interface, slower than Raptors.... bigger, though

Hahaha... U160 slower than a Raptor? I'm sorry, but the Raptor is probably on par with 2nd or 3rd generation 10K U160 drives.

Not to mention SCSI has many years of proven relaible whereas this Raptor is new.

My reply was for the quoted post. The 73 G Maxtor Atlas that was mentioned for $153 has to be one of the old Quantum( now Maxtor) Atlas II's, a U160 interface and spec'd slower than a Raptor. I was not a making a general SATA verses SCSI comment. Sure the latest SCSI is faster. For $153 I'd take the Raptor over the old Atlas and keep the change.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: FullRoast
My reply was for the quoted post. The 73 G Maxtor Atlas that was mentioned for $153 has to be one of the old Quantum( now Maxtor) Atlas II's, a U160 interface and spec'd slower than a Raptor. I was not a making a general SATA verses SCSI comment. Sure the latest SCSI is faster. For $153 I'd take the Raptor over the old Atlas and keep the change.

You said U160 in general. However, given the circumstances, I'd say that Atlas II (did he say it was an Atlas II?) is about on par with the Raptor. It probably loses in some regards (max transfer, read, etc) but probably wins in others (write speed, min seek, etc). Although for less than $200 some vendors on eBay are selling Atlas III, Atlas IV, Fujitsu MAP 73GB U320 SCSI drives. Not that far off from the $150ish SATA 36GB Raptor.

 

[FullRoast]

You said U160 in general...

No I didn't. At least that is not what I was trying to say. Look back at the thread.

EeyoreX says:

"Doing a PriceWatch search I found:

Western Digital Raptor 36GB: $134.99
Maxtor ATLAS 73GB: $153.00"

lameaway says:

"Thats interesting - most 10krpm high capacity SCSI drives i've seen lately are in the $300+ range. I had no idea such a drive could be had for so cheap... whats wrong with it? "

Me: I go check pricewatch to see what kind of Maxtor ATLAS 73GB drive is listed for $153.00. It is an old Quantum (Maxtor) Atlas II. The spec'd trasfer rate is slower than a WD Raptor.

I replied to lameaway's question about "cheap...whats wrong with it?" by replying "Old technology, Ultra 160 interface, slower than Raptors.... bigger, though". That's all. And an old Atlas II is big and loud.

Now, where were we... oh yeah, SATA vs SCSI

 

[megamanS]

Ok, but what about Serial Attached SCSI? When's that coming out?