• 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 vs IDE

A

Anybody

Senior member

Heres the situation,

Serious disk access 24/7 large and small data transfers from host machine out to the web.

systems are currently using Adaptec 2940's with 36 gig Ultra320 scsi/sca2/lvd drives

No raid.. just straight disk access.

What do people think the performance of an ATA 133 disk with 8mb of cache and an ATA 133 controller would be like compared to the SCSI disk?


 
For me I just like a better quality drive with SCSI had too many drive failures with IDEs is WD JBs IBMs and the like. you can get some older tech still new SCSI HDs with huge warranties left for pretty cheap.
 
performance will be great until they crash and die 🙂

consumer IDE drives are not rated for 24/7 use, so even if you get drives with 3-year warranties expect to lose time and money to disk crashes and RMAs. For 24/7 use SCSI is still the way to go.
 
Performance would be somewhat worse.

You did not mention how many drives you have hooked up (or make and model),
but with U320 SCSI, you still have the advantages of better command queueing and
device disconnect features. Giving the SCSI drives better I/O performance, especially
under server use conditions.

If you were using a controller with better support for Ultra320, then there are a few
other features you could take advantage of, but as it stands, the current controller
you have has less bandwidth than an ATA-133 setup, but better I/O.

IMO, speed wise, something like a couple of Raptors would have better data transfer
for its files, but the SCSI drives would seem more responsive to user requests.

And there are "enterprise" class IDE drives that are designed (and rated) for longer use.
 
For 24/7 serious disk access, SCSI will be ahead in performance and more importantly, reliability. The Raptor is the only non-scsi drive to offer a 5 year warranty. IDE drives have 3 years at most, but more often 1 year.
 
SCSI has my vote simply because its more reliable for what your trying to do. Its alot more expensive, but for a business environment, stability comes before cost most of the time.
 
Don't chance it, you have no clue how much SCSI brings to the table when it comes to multi access situations.
 
SCSI vs IDE is a multifaceted question....

if you are talking one drive applications, IDE will generally SMOKE SCSI nowadays.....even some of the RAID configs are leading out in non-server type environments....

SCSI's main strengths have always been multiple access and long term/heavy usage reliabilty. However you get what you pay for, some SCSI drives are just the IDE ones reconfigured.

Currently I run my CD, CD-RW, DVD, Scanner, PCMCIA reader (for compact flash) off my SCSI adapter....later on I will add a DVD burner with an ATAPI to SCSI adapter.

I run my superdisc, WD 120GB and IBM 60GB off the EIDE bus. I do have an 80MB/sec card for SCSI.

I'd recommend SCSI for your application, even if it gave up a little speed.
 
Performance would be much worse. Just took a look at storage review. Looks like the best IDE score only 1/2 as well as the worst SCSI ultra320 drive in the web server test.

If you want more performance in a situation like this, add RAID 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top