• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SCSI to SATA adapter?

I

imported_MooGoo

Member
Does such a thing exist? Is it even possible. I have searched high and low and have not found anything that looks like it could adapt a SCSI drive to an SATA interface.

I have seen SCSI to IDE adapters, however I am curious if using such an adapter would degrade the performance of the SCSI drive. Seems like SATA would be the better interface to adapt to.

Any info would be helpful, thanks!
 
Google is your friend. Searching "SCSI to SATA adapter" in quotes to search for the entire text string. The first entry is for the ACARD AEC-7730 SCSI to SATA Adapter for $80.

You may want to find out if the translation could add enough overhead that you could lose the speed avantage of either bus. Also, if the price of the adapter is high enough, it may be more cost effective to sell the SCSI drives and buy the ones you want?
 
may i ask why you want to do this? you can pick up adaptec 19160 cards in the fs/t forum for ~$40 or you can get a new lsiu160 for ~$35@newegg
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Google is your friend. Searching "SCSI to SATA adapter" in quotes to search for the entire text string. The first entry is for the ACARD AEC-7730 SCSI to SATA Adapter for $80.

You may want to find out if the translation could add enough overhead that you could lose the speed avantage of either bus. Also, if the price of the adapter is high enough, it may be more cost effective to sell the SCSI drives and buy the ones you want?
Click to expand...


Yea I saw that, unfortunatly that adapter goes the wrong way, it converts an SATA drive to a SCSI interface, I'm trying to do the reverse. It is also prohibitivly expensive.


Basicly the only reason I want to do this is cause I got this fast SCSI hard disk laying around and would like to use it in my new computer that has an SATA interface but not a SCSI one.

From what I've seen SCSI interface cards seem to be pretty expensive, usualy expensive enough that I would be better off just buying a SATA drive. The $35 one on newegg looks nice, how does the cheap ones compare to the ones that cost over $100. Would they be fast enough for a 10k Cheata 36gig Seagate?
 
An LSI Ultra160 card will be fast enough for any single 10k Cheetah. Interestingly, Newegg has just jacked up the price on the LSI Logic Ultra160 card, it was sitting around $31 and now they want $46 for it :frown: Hypermicro.com has the card for less, and don't forget a compatible LVD cable & terminator while you're at it, they have less-expensive options than what Newegg carries.
 
Thanks for the links, got a question about the LSI board.

It says it uses a 64bit PCI interface, is this compatible with a shorter 32bit PCI slot?

Also what do you mean compatible LVD cable? Am I to imply from that that not all LVD cable's work with any SCSI device? If so how do I figure out what is compatible. Is this?

I'm sure my SCSI inexperience shows, so thanks for the help again.
 
Originally posted by: MooGoo
Thanks for the links, got a question about the LSI board.

It says it uses a 64bit PCI interface, is this compatible with a shorter 32bit PCI slot?

Also what do you mean compatible LVD cable? Am I to imply from that that not all LVD cable's work with any SCSI device? If so how do I figure out what is compatible. Is this?

I'm sure my SCSI inexperience shows, so thanks for the help again.
Click to expand...
The LSI U160 card will work in a 32-bit PCI slot fine, I've got one right here 🙂 Cable-wise, yeah the one you linked to would be fine. It's kinda big though :Q so you might consider this 3-position one if you don't mind traditional flat cabling: http://www.hypermicro.com/product.asp?pf_id=CAHM204

 
sorry about the incorrect price, those cards were ~$35 for a couple of years. but as others have stated it will work fine in a 32bit slot, it is just longer.

u160 means that in theory it is 160MB/s, where a 32pci slot is only 133MB/s, so yes the u160 card will work fine and not be a bottleneck for the hdd subsystem

i am currently using this card with the clear version of the cable you linked to running a u320 fujitsu 36GB 10k rpm drive. mine will burst to ~95MB/s and sustain ~60MB/s according to hdtach. if you are doing a clean install and this is your boot disk, xp doesn't need additional drivers but win2kpro needs you to hit f8 and add the drivers.
 
I just ran hdtach on my cheap celeron IBM computer at work with a regular IDE drive and the stats it got were scarily close to the ones you just posted. It got (if I'm reading the results right) 90MB/s burst and 52MB/s average read.

Dosen't seem your SCSI provides all that much extra performance. I also used hdtach's comparision function to compare the drive in this machine with the data they had for my Seagate, and it seemed the performance was mostly the same, with the Seagate getting less of a burst speed and only slightly faster with average read time. Am I doing somthing wrong?
 
no you are not doing things wrong, that is definately good. where the advantages of a 10krpm drive would be are in seek time, then again you won't really notice a day and night difference unless you went with the newest generatin 15krpm u320 drives. in my machine i also have a ibm 60GB and also a wd 80GB and the speeds are around what you wrote yours were. but when i have taken the scsi drive out and put the ibm drive in its place, i can feel the difference, although not huge but noticeable by me. also i bought the scsi stuff because i wanted to learn about it and it was a write off, had it not been a write off i don't know if i would have purchased it.
 
HDTach can be handy for determining if there's something majorly wrong with a setup, but if you think it's the ultimate disk benchmark... 😀

I have a real-world task I do at work, that runs in less than half the time on my Cheetah 15k.3 versus a 7200rpm ATA drive with 8MB cache. I found it... inspiring :evil: And Mrs. Cheetah comes out like this on HDTach, if you're curious to see what that would look like.

It's the low seek times and tagged command queueing that I credit for the performance, not simple burst rates or transfer rates. Heck, my ancient first-generation 9GB Quantum Atlas 10k drive from ca. 1997 can beat the ATA drive I was referring to, in my real-world work task, and its peak sustained transfer rate is down around 24MB/sec.

That said, there are now seven generations of 10k Seagate Cheetahs. If yours is one of the older generations, don't expect glorious HDTach results. But they'll still seek fast and retain the other SCSI goodnesses.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Google is your friend. Searching "SCSI to SATA adapter" in quotes to search for the entire text string. The first entry is for the ACARD AEC-7730 SCSI to SATA Adapter for $80.

You may want to find out if the translation could add enough overhead that you could lose the speed avantage of either bus. Also, if the price of the adapter is high enough, it may be more cost effective to sell the SCSI drives and buy the ones you want?
Click to expand...


Except that the particular one you linked to lets you connect a SATA hard drive to a SCSI interface.
Originally posted by: MooGoo
I have searched high and low and have not found anything that looks like it could adapt a SCSI drive to an SATA interface.
Click to expand...
But your advice about Google remains valid.
And it looks like MooGoo already pointed that out. That's what I get for not reading the entire thread before clicking "post".

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I have a real-world task I do at work, that runs in less than half the time on my Cheetah 15k.3 versus a 7200rpm ATA drive with 8MB cache. I found it... inspiring :evil: And Mrs. Cheetah comes out like this on HDTach, if you're curious to see what that would look like.
Click to expand...

Wow, that definitely is a nice random access time - 5.8ms. Now that I've been made aware that there's a free version of HDTach that works on WinXP, I've got to try it out on my RAID 5 setup. AIDA32's HD benchmark has provided some good numbers, but no one else quotes that when benchmarking drives; I've also used a little program called HDSpeed.
 
Wow, that definitely is a nice random access time - 5.8ms. Now that I've been made aware that there's a free version of HDTach that works on WinXP, I've got to try it out on my RAID 5 setup. AIDA32's HD benchmark has provided some good numbers, but no one else quotes that when benchmarking drives; I've also used a little program called HDSpeed.
Click to expand...
FYI it seemed to disable my PrintScrn key, I got my screenshot using my image editor's screen-capture capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top