SCSI VS RAID

[Punisher007]

I've been contemplating this decision for a while now. I can either go with an Adaptec U160 controller + Seagate x15-36LP 18.2GB OR RAID0 133 with 120GB of space. I'm not sure if I would use all that space on the raid setup. What would you guys prefer and why? I think 18.2 would be enough for me since I don't do very much video encoding or store large video/audio media.

 

[N8Magic]

Go with the 120GB RAID 0 (make it RAID 0+1 if you can afford the space) over the SCSI.

I find that SCSI drives burn out too fast if you don't have them cooled properly.

 

[t3chvest]

Well if you're not gonna use the 120gb, then don't worry about getting a raid, go for the scsi. However, I would personally pick the raid (lots of files, download many many things, like to do full installs of programs).

Either one is a winner

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

the real question is "SCSI vs. IDE RAID" because you can have scsi raid just as you can have ide raid.

i'd go for scsi over ide raid, although i'm too poor for either.

 

[JC]

I'd go with the SCSI setup, by the needs you've described. You won't notice a difference in throughput in your use, and the SCSI drives are designed for longer life, and have longer
warranties. You do need proper HD cooling though (duh!, CPUs burn out if you don't cool them properly too). Plus you get SCSI's flexibility for adding other devices.

And then there's the geek factor...

JC

 

[SCSIRAID]

Id go for the SCSI. Seek times would be a lot better. X15 data rate would be close to IDE in RAID. Better reliability. etc etc. I currently have U160 and a Fujitsu 73G 10K. It rocks!

 

[Athlon4all]

10k or 15k SCSI in most situations will easily outperform a IDE RAID 0 array. If u want a better hd interface, go all the way and get SCSI.

 

[RichardInLA]

I have both IBM 10k rpm lvd scsi and Maxtor ATA/133 RAID. Controllers are Adaptec 29160 and ACARD 6880 respectively. Winbench 99 shows that the RAID is outperforming the SCSI by 10-50%, depending on which specific benchmark test.