SCSI Questions

[moosey]

What are the major benefits of a scsi optical drive like DVD or cd-rom? Is it a lot quicker in loading games and does it rip audio better? What else is better over IDE? Also, with a HDD access times are going to be faster, but are there any other majr benefits? How would you set up a scsi optical drive and HDD with an IDE burner? Thanks

 

[Vegito]

Not much, it is a little faster.. ie since ide waits for master or slave to complete each task in each channel, it sits and wait.. scsi can go anywhere.. so in theory it's faster. SCSI drives cost more and have longer warranty. IDE cheap and less. I just like scsi since I can hook up a full tower with dvd/cdr/cdrw + all the other little goodies..

My tower has 2 18 gb on a full height 5.25 bay (cooler) and a dvd drive, cdr + rw + 2 removable ide drives. So basically I use the removable for transporting data and stuff. And I dont have that ide restriction.. But SATA is catching up.. i saw a 12 channel sata controller.. expensive but it'll do the same trick.

 

[Erasmus-X]

If the rest of your system is IDE and you have no plans on upgrading it all to SCSI, I would suggest just sticking with an IDE recorder. Back in the early days of CD-R technology, IDE drives had lackluster performance and reliability. This is why several people (including me) made the extra investment on a SCSI recorder and controller card. But now this is hardly the case. There are lots of good IDE recorders out there.

I use SCSI exlusively for other reasons; mainly A/V editing. SCSI has virtually unparalleled performance in this area. SCSI has dedicated processing. IDE leeches off of the northbridge controller, which in turn leeches directly from the CPU. You can have up to 6 devices running on ONE SCSI chain (14 with wide SCSI). IDE limits you to only two. IDE has cooperative tasking, meaning that only one device can communicate at a time within the same chain. SCSI doesn't have this limitation.

The only drawbacks are that they're expensive, LOUD, and create lots of heat (so you better have a BIG case if you plan on running a SCSI system!). You never see SCSI on mainstream systems because there's really no need for it. Most people buy their computers to get on the Internet, type papers, and play games; all things that make SCSI unnecessary.

 

[Zepper]

I haven't seen any new SCSI optical drives in months (if not years). The fastest SCSI-only burner is still the Sanyo 24x. The fastest SCSI DVDs are the Pioneer and Toshiba 10x40. Yamaha supposedly has a SCSI adapter for their recent burners, but I haven't heard a lot about it. The fastest SCSI CD-ROM is the Plextor 40x.
Of course the overall concept of SCSI is far superior to the current IDE mish-mash (SATA may change that, but it's still down the road a ways). And a SCSI hard drive is still the top dog. It's up to you whether the flexibility and elegance of SCSI is worh the added cost.
.bh.

 

[Beeker25]

I run all SCSI and SCSI RAID on all of my systems, I am one of the biggest SCSI fans you will ever see, but if you are only going to run optical drives, you are better off sticking with IDE, todays IDE optical drives such as CDRW's and DVD's are just as good and fast, if not faster than any optical SCSI drive you will find. If, on the other hand, you are planning to add at least 3-4 U160 or U320 10K or 15K SCSI HD's, and numerous CDRW's, a DVD, CDRom, Tape drive, ect. ,then SCSI by all means is the way to go, IDE can't even come close. Check out my System Specs link in my sig to see how SCSI is fully taken advantage of and used to it's full potential. For my uses, IDE is completely useless and a waste of time, money, and performance, but for every day use, especially with recent IDE burners with Burn-proof technology and speeds of 48x12x40, SCSI can't compare as far as CDRW's, but when it cmes to HD's, IDE is left in the dust. So if you aren't going to go the FULL SCSI route, don't bother, it won't be worth your extra money just to use a CDRW and DVD, IDE will suit your needs perfectly and save you quite a bit of money. All of my systems have anywhere from 4-8 10K or 15K U160 Seagate Cheetah's in RAID 5 with 1-3 extra Cheetah's for extra storage, 6 Plextor 12/10/32S SCSI CDRW's, Plextor 40X SCSI CDRom, Pioneer 10X SCSI DVD, and Sony SDT11000 DDS4 Tape drives, IDE couldn't come near to meeting my storage and performance needs. SCSI does come at a high price tag, a 18GB 15,000rpm U160 or U320 SCSI hard drive will cost you more than a 180GB IDE hard drive, and you can plan on spending anywhere from $100 to $250 for a regular, non RAID SCSI controller and $600 and upwards on a U160 SCSI RAID controller. So if you are going to go SCSI, go all the way and be ready to shellout some serious money to see the real advantage of it or don't do it at all. In answer to your last question, to set up a SCSI CDRW, DVD and U160 SCSI HD, you will need a U160 SCSI Controller such as an Adaptec 29160 which has both LVD and SE connectors-68pin LVD U160 for the HD, 68pin SE/LVD for Wide SCSI, and 50pin for Narrow to keep all of the differant speed devices seperate so that your slower devices such as the optical drives that run at 20MB/s-40MB/s don't slow down your U160Mb/s HD's down, the 2 chains need to be kept seperate, if they aren't, all of the devices will only run as fast as the slowest device on the chain. Hope that this info helps you out. Good luck.

 

[dszd0g]

My main system right now is all SCSI, but I am in the process of picking out the parts for my next system.

At this point I think I am going to stay SCSI for the HD: a nice 15K Seagate 36GB drive and I may add a second one a little down the road.

However, I see no advantage in going with a SCSI CDRW and DVD drive. My current system's drives are still the fastest on the market, and that's sad. It seems that no company is keeping their SCSI CDRW and DVDs up to date. I would be willing to pay the additional money if they did, but it seems faster to go IDE for CDRW and DVD.

I had an HP Kayak at work that was a dual processor, SCSI HDs, and IDE CDRW system and it seemed to have the best of both worlds. I didn't seem to notice the IDE latency that is present on an all IDE system.