SCSI VS ATA100

[Afu]

what u guys think ?

 

[Dark4ng3l]

ATA 100 is useless hard drives can barely transfer around 60 megs/sec at bes(ide hard drives) SCSCI is way faster and has beter drives(1000 rpm)

 

[Fandu]

Each has it's merits. But my fingers are sore, and I'm content to leave it at that. If you really want technical vs technical comparision, e-mail me

 

[PCResources]

Well, besides the better quality and raw performance of SCSI drives, there is another advantage.

For IDE, the CPU is doing all of the work (this is simplified), the disk is just a storage space, and the controller is just an interface (just like RISER modems, the software is doing the job).

SCSI doesn´t need the CPU power to operate as it has it´s own processor, it can operate by itself without any CPU interference (in the background) and is therefore a better alternative.

So if you are looking for disks that are faster, better quality, and who don´t draw power from your CPU, go SCSI.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Actually even the fastest IDE harddrives can't max out ATA33, so not only is ATA100 useless, but ATA66 is as well.

 

[HaVoC]

Really truly SCSI has it's BIGGEST advantage not in RAW SPEED (the newest IDE drive continue to eat into the SCSI performance advantage) but the MULTITASKING nature of the SCSI bus. Basically in situations where you have multiple access to the hard disk subsystem, the SCSI bus will show superior performance to the IDE bus. SCSI is much more scalable but for PC hard drives, I don't think they are worth the extra price. SCSI burners, scanners, CD drives are a different story. (worth it)

 

[EvilDonnyboy]

acutally, at top speed, the latest IBMs and i think the Maxtor+45's can reach over 33mb/s, though rarely.

 

[Radboy]

They are comparable for sustain x-fer rates (STRs) but current generation SCSI drives (like the Cheetah X15) have blazing fast seek/access times. Combined with SCSI's multitasking/multithreaded ability (which the IDE interface doesn't sppt), SCSI drives excel at running an OS, applications/programs & swap file.

ATA drives excel at giving you huge chunks of disk real estate for a small fraction (1/5th?) of what it costs for as SCSI drive (on a co$t/GB ratio basis). Each has it's own strengths & weaknesses. Knowing what those strengths & weaknesses are, help you make the right decisions, so you can use each for what it's best at.

For those who do things with their PC that take advantage of the SCSI (multitasking/multithreaded) interface I recommend booting from a small (9GB or 18GB), fast (10Krpm or 15Krpm) SCSI beast.

This may help.

 

[Quickfingerz]

the new western digital drive has sustained transfer rates better than MOST SCSI drives. Onlly the Atlas II and Cheetah X15 does better. SCSI has better random acess which is needed because of the superior SCSI bus.

 

[PCResources]

<< the new western digital drive has sustained transfer rates better than MOST SCSI drives >>



Really? Well, the new WD drive actually has worse STR than the old barracuda (not in the promo, but in real life), so i just wonder what SCSI drives you had in mind?

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[ragiepew]

<< ATA 100 is useless hard drives can barely transfer around 60 megs/sec at bes(ide hard drives) SCSCI is way faster and has beter drives(1000 rpm) >>



First off, no IDE hard drive can SUSTAIN 60mb/s, none! they might burst that, someitmes, but dont even come close to sustaining that... as a matter of fact, neither does any SCSI drive. The advantages of SCSI comes w/ its bus. The new bus (Ultra 160) supports 160Mb/s throughput and allows for linking 15 devices to it. The fastest SCSI drive out AFIK, the x15, can do roughly 45Mb/s sustained... this alone will not fill the bus... but say you have three of them in a Stripped RAID config... no IDE drive or combination will be able to even come close. Also, as mentioned above, the SCIS controler actually has a brain in that it can manage its transfers and allows for multiple devices to be accessed at one time... IDE can only access one at a time.

also... 1000rpm? thats a mistype right...

 

[thorin]

I know you didn't ask about it, but seriously to get the best of both worlds you should wait for SerialATA. (It'll be low cost [manufacturers have said less then 10% price premium when released....which would be sweet, time will tell] with almost all the benefits of SCSI)

World's First SerialATA Drive

InsaneHardware doesn't have the pics available anymore but you should have seen how small the cables are/were.....about the size of a phone line or cat5.

&quot;INTEL DEVELOPER FORUM CONFERENCE, SAN JOSE, Calif. - August 24, 2000 - Seagate Technology, APT Technologies, Inc. and Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation today unveiled the first Serial ATA disc drive, giving a glimpse into the future of ATA disc drive technology. The drive is natively attached to an Intel® Pentium® 4 processor system through an APT Serial ATA PCI Host Bus Adapter, featuring a 1.5 Gbps transfer rate. The prototype demonstration combines technologies from Seagate, APT, Intel Corporation and Vitesse. It features a Seagate disc drive with its Serial ATA board, using APT's Serial ATA Link and Transport layers logic and Vitesse's 1.5 Gbs CMOS transceiver, attached via Serial ATA to APT's Serial ATA to PCI host bus adapter.&quot;

SerialATA.org (Check out their FAQ, etc...)

Like SCSI SerialATA allows for:
? Hot Plugging of drives
? Multiple drives to access the channel at the same time
? The SerialATA interface is backward compatible through the use of cable addapters or dongles
? Huge bandiwdth which is easily and aready planned to be scaled up

Thorin

 

[HaVoC]

Yes many buses in inside the PC are going to a serialized interface. Easier to scale up to high data rates with just a transmit and receive signal wire.

 

[ragiepew]

umm if possible wait... serial ata looks to rock!