Seagate SCSI performance?

[Blammo300]

I am planning for my new computer and was wondering how well SCSI hard drives perform compared to ATA.

You can get a SEAGATE 18GB 15,000RPM MODEL for around $200, now if it is as fast as I think then it would be worth it to install OS and games on and such. Anyone have or know anything about it?

 

[smadavid]

Don't have an answer, but I'm wondering the exact same thing. I'm thinking of picking up a 15,000 model for my next system along with an Adaptec controller (don't forget the controller costs quite a bit too -- prob. $200 for something good). I think its the perfect solution for a boot drive. I plan to get a second drive, a large IDE drive for media, wav files and the like. So I'll have the best of both worlds. Fast boot-up and program launches, with plenty of storage space.

 

[mooseAndSquirrel]

I have a 15K Cheetah (36GB) for my boot drive. I gave up on it for a while (because XP was actually slower with SCSI until SP1) and just have it as a non-boot drive. Sandra disk tests show it as slower than my IDE RAID0 pair of 7200 WD's. I am building my next rig and will go back to this as my boot drive. But I'm primarily making this decision because of all the money I spent on this stuff.

The drive is hot.

The drive is noisy.

As pointed out, you need a SCSI card. If you only have this one device, then you've paid a heck of a lot for 18GB.

Heck, even SCSI cables are pricey!

On the plus side, you should see lower CPU utilization compared to an IDE drive and having a less busy IDE chain might improve high speed CD burning.

But having gone down this path myself, I'd say you'd be much better off with an IDE RAID card and 2 120GB western digital 7200 rpm drives put together in RAID0 (risky, but just backup your stuff). For about the same price you'll have 240GB that is much faster, quieter and cooler than 18GB.

 

[pm]

It's worth mentioning that there are multiple generations of 18GB 15krpm Seagate SCSI HD's. The early ones were hot and loud, the later ones are better in both respects.

Read the reviews at www.storagereview.net. Like the 15k ver. 3 review here.

Despite the impressive performance outlined above, the Cheetah 15K.3's most astonishing attribute may be its idle noise floor. With a sound pressure measurement of just 45.1 dB/A at a distance of 18 millimeters, the 15K.3 finds itself among the idle noise generated by typical 7200 RPM ATA drives! Seek noise also continues to decline. Just a few years ago top-end drives would churn away with a racket easily heard one room removed. The 15K.3, however, emits seek sounds more like that of quieter 7200 RPM SCSI units.

Since the X15's inception Seagate has repeatedly emphasized the importance of maintaining the series' power consumption (and thus heat generation) within the lines of 10K RPM drives. 15K RPM drives nonetheless seemed to run hotter than their 10K brethren? until now. At just 25.1 degrees Celsius above ambient, the 15K.3 lands itself squarely within the realm of 7200 RPM SCSI drives! It thus may be installed into any well-ventilated machine without requiring active cooling. 15K drives have finally reached a point where they may be unobtrusively integrated into a high-end desktop machine.

Having gone down the cheap SCSI route myself (1st generation 10krpm Seagate Cheetahs), my only advice is either spend the big bucks and get the latest and greatest, or stick with IDE. If you go cheap, it probably won't meet your expectations.

 

[GoSharks]

raid does not equal fast!

by striping together two or more hard drives, you only improve the transfer rate. that means nothing. that is also what sandra is testing. the 10k and 15k scsi drives all kick ass when it comes down what really counts, access time. on average, a 15k drive will get where it needs to be 2-3 times faster than what it would take an IDE drive too.

*ignore the above if you are working with large files*

 

[WinkOsmosis]

IMO, SCSI is way past the point of diminishing returns.. $400 is better spent on other things than 18gb of storage.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
IMO, SCSI is way past the point of diminishing returns.. $400 is better spent on other things than 18gb of storage.

$400? that pricing is a tad old there..

hypermico.com

IBM 36Z15 (15k rpm) 18gb - $129
-or-
Maxtor Atlas 10K III 18gb - $145 (actually was $99 at frys last friday)

-and-
LSI Logic U160 host adapter with cable - $89

for about $230 you can get yourself a setup that will be faster than any ide setup currently on the market. yes it will even kill ide raid.

 

[Emrys]

SCSI is faster than ATA hands down, but it always comes at a price. Your 18giger at 200 and card at anywhere from 2-300 for a decent one- what 500 for one drive?
Are you sure that is what you want to do. In my opinion, if your going to do one SCSI drive, don't. You don't benifit cost vs performance wise untill you get more drives.
And even then people will debate it. Some of the new ATA drives are quick, and if you are just building a new computer and want a fast boot drive I don't think
the best route would be SCSI because you are spending quite a bit for one drive.

 

[Whitedog]

On Top of all that... don't forget to mention the increased data integrity of SCSI over IDE. Like 10x....

IDE = Budget computer

SCSI = Enthusiast Computer

nuff said


I know... all you guys who have sunk mega$ into your computers and have these elaborate IDE Raid systems will argue. However, it's still a buget computer compared to the latest SCSI setup.

 

[Jaylllo]

I have a pair of Seagate X 15 36lps

I find them loud.

THough they do runnn fast.



I can;t sleep with 6 HDS. 2 15k seagates 2 10k fujitsus and the good ole (pair) WD400EB for storage
Link
By the way IM ebaying them if you guys are interested.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Whitedog
On Top of all that... don't forget to mention the increased data integrity of SCSI over IDE. Like 10x....

IDE = Budget computer

SCSI = Enthusiast Computer

nuff said


I know... all you guys who have sunk mega$ into your computers and have these elaborate IDE Raid systems will argue. However, it's still a buget computer compared to the latest SCSI setup.

So if I hook up $10,000 speakers to my computer with a $1K sound card, its still a budget computer because its not SCSI? If I have Triple 32" LCDs, (yes they do make those) its still budget because its IDE? You get a funny idea if you relate IDE to budget and SCSI to enthusiast.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Yeah you can't go wrong running yur OS off a fast 15k18gb seagate drive and using a larger ide drive for storage like an 80gb western digital
i dream about those things in a perfect world.....
but i'm sick like that
just think of the faster drive like cache and the slower drive like main memory heh
it may be very small and expensive but if yur running yur os off it and loading game installs from it to mem then you will notice things
and yur slower ide drive would be perfect for storing movies and mp3's or even game installs if you wanted

 

[Markfw]

Well, I have had both and am mixed on the subject. My last SCSI setup was an Adaptec 2940U2W with a 9 gig 7200 rpm drive (before IDE had 7200 rpm). It died like a year later, but for that year it was not that great or fast, and it was hot. I have been on Raid0 7200rpm Maxtors for about 1 1/2 years now, and it blows that SCSI 7200 setup out the door for speed, is not near as hot, and not near as exspensive. I might try SCSI again someday, and still have a HP C1599a DDS2 dat drive on that controller in my system for backups, but not until I can afford "the latest and the greatest", and maybe raid also.

BTW, the comment on raid only increasing transfer rate is garbage. When striped properly, you have two or more heads running to find data at once in some cases, and it DOES speed up access time in those cases, maybe not for the first seek, but overall load time for files.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
BTW, the comment on raid only increasing transfer rate is garbage. When striped properly, you have two or more heads running to find data at once in some cases, and it DOES speed up access time in those cases, maybe not for the first seek, but overall load time for files.

winbench99 says otherwise for my pair of 9GB seagate cheetah 36XL stripped with software in win2k.

and if you stop to think about it, access time should be about the same, perhaps even longer becuase you need both drives to be at the right place at the same time, or the controller will be waiting for the other half of the data being requested.

 

[Markfw]

Posted by GOSHARKS:
"winbench99 says otherwise for my pair of 9GB seagate cheetah 36XL stripped with software in win2k.

and if you stop to think about it, access time should be about the same, perhaps even longer becuase you need both drives to be at the right place at the same time, or the controller will be waiting for the other half of the data being requested"

1) I don't always trust benchmarks, I rely mostly on live experience
2) "Striped with software" makes a lot of difference to using firmware/hardware.
3) I can't read the mind of the person who wrote the firmware, and don't want to assume your second statement to be true, as this may NOT be the case. For file "A", with 4 blocks of data to be retrieved, disk 1 could be getting block 1 and block 3 one right after the other in one request, while disk 2 could be getting block 2 and 4 one right after the other. That means that block 1 and 2 would be getting retrived virtually at the same time. If the firmware read the entire request before requesting disk access, then, yes it could be twice as fast. I don't have time to get the link, but Tomshardware has several articles on raid that show it to be faster at times, and almost always faster on average.

Per point 1, IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH BOTH of my two cases, the IDE raid beat the single SCSI at the same rpm. Granted the IDE drives are 2-4 years newer hardware, and the platter density is probably higher, but you can't just say that SCSI is always better, there are too many variables.

 

[Pariah]

"BTW, the comment on raid only increasing transfer rate is garbage. When striped properly, you have two or more heads running to find data at once in some cases, and it DOES speed up access time in those cases"

Doesn't matter how many heads you have, they do not seek independently of each other. RAID can improve access times slightly due to better head placement since data spread across multiple drive means it takes up less space on each drive, but that advantage is very slight and certainly nothing you would notice during usage.

"Per point 1, IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH BOTH of my two cases, the IDE raid beat the single SCSI at the same rpm. Granted the IDE drives are 2-4 years newer hardware"

Imagine that, 2 current drives RAID'd beating a single old drive. Who'd have thunk it? 7200RPM SCSI drives a rare breed now a days, and anyone going SCSI would be out of their mind to choose a 7200RPM SCSI drive. A 4 year old SCSI drive is certainly not going to be faster than a current ATA drive, but when people make the comment that SCSI is usually faster, common sense dictates that they are talking about reasonably recent drives. A first generation 15k drive from 2 years ago is still faster than today's ATA drives in the majority of scenarios.

 

[Markfw]

Pariah, I think you missed my point. How current the hardware is DOES make a big difference, and SCSI isn't always faster. Also, when using the comparison, my ONE year old SCSI drive died, and was replaced with IDE raid That is not really 2-4 year difference in technology. Also, I spent $385 for a 9 gig SCSI, and one year later I spent about $150 each for the 20 gig IDE (early 7200 rpm) for less total money. I know technology changes fast, but one year doesn't make those kinds of quantum leaps.

And a quote from http://www.storcase.com/tools/raid.asp :
"With RAID 0, or a configuration known as "data striping", data is written in sequential sections across more than two drives. RAID 0 is easy to implement, and it can dramatically improve performance. Several drives can be accessed at once, minimizing the overall "seek" time of larger files. This configuration has no data redundancy and therefore no protection against data loss, however, so it should not be used for business-critical applications. "

 

[Pariah]

"Pariah, I think you missed my point. How current the hardware is DOES make a big difference, and SCSI isn't always faster."

No, I didn't miss the point, I know what you are saying and agree with that point, but I don't think the point is relevent to the arguement. I don't think anyone would argue that comparing the currently available CPU's, that the Intel 2.8GHz P4 is the fastest available. So if someone asks who makes faster CPU's, the answer is Intel. Using your argument you went from an 800MHz PIII to a dual Athlon XP 2000+ so now you're going to claim Intel makes the inferior product off of that comparison? That's clearly bogus, as you have to pick products that are of reasonably close generations.

"Also, when using the comparison, my ONE year old SCSI drive died, and was replaced with IDE raid That is not really 2-4 year difference in technology."

First off, you're the one that said 2-4 years, not me. I was just quoting you. Secondly, 7200RPM drives have not been the peak of technology in the SCSI department since 1997. So from a technology standpoint, it's actually 5 years. You don't compare a Celeron to an Athlon XP and conclude Intel is slower. 10k drives are now the lowend in SCSI, and a 2 year old 10k drive (Atlas 10K II for example) will still perform favorably vs a current generation ATA drive.

"Also, I spent $385 for a 9 gig SCSI, and one year later I spent about $150 each for the 20 gig IDE (early 7200 rpm) for less total money."

The prices of SCSI have dropped considerably. An 18GB Atas 10K III sells for $125 now which is well within the range of the common consumer. The SCSI drive you bought a year before the ATA drives will also still be in warranty a year after the ATA drive's expires.

"I know technology changes fast, but one year doesn't make those kinds of quantum leaps."

When you compare the lowend for one side vs the highend of another a year later, there should be a considerable difference.

 

[pm]

About the one thing that I learned from my experience is that SCSI does not always mean faster than IDE (something that both Mark and Pariah are saying in different words), and 10krpm doesn't always result in faster drives than modern 7200rpm IDE drives. Yes, the seek times were lightning faster, but if the transfer rates are dog slow then it won't matter how fast it seeks to the data unless you are accessing a lot of really small files (which is definitely not my usage pattern).

Which leads me back to my point which is that going cheap on SCSI is likely to lead to disappointment because "cheap SCSI" nearly always means "old SCSI". If you want to go SCSI for performance reasons, be prepared to spend the big bucks and if you do you will end up with a really fast storage system. Otherwise, you'll wonder what all the SCSI buzz is about like I did when I bought my two 1st generation Cheetahs a couple of years back and couldn't figure out why my IBM GXP75 was faster in the real world than the Cheetahs were - even with the Cheetah's 30% boost in seek time.

 

[Markfw]

Ditto pm.. Thanks for a clearer explanation of my intent.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: pm

Which leads me back to my point which is that going cheap on SCSI is likely to lead to disappointment because "cheap SCSI" nearly always means "old SCSI". If you want to go SCSI for performance reasons, be prepared to spend the big bucks and if you do you will end up with a really fast storage system. Otherwise, you'll wonder what all the SCSI buzz is about like I did when I bought my two 1st generation Cheetahs a couple of years back and couldn't figure out why my IBM GXP75 was faster in the real world than the Cheetahs were - even with the Cheetah's 30% boost in seek time.

well right now, cheap scsi (as i pointed out earlier) does not mean slow scsi... you can get a hot running ibm 15k drive or the atlas 10KIII which by no means is slow, even though it is about a year old. those 8MB drives are getting that old too, are they not?

yes we are ignoring the capacity of the cheaper scsi drives, but you dont really need speed for your mp3's and videos right?

another thing we are leaving out of the equation is the move to 1 year warenties for your basic IDE drive. what happens if your drive dies after that period? time for a new drive and to spend more money than you originally intended. with scsi, you just send it back and you can keep going with only the few dollars needed to ship the hdd back to the manufacture gone from your wallet.

 

[mooseAndSquirrel]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS


yes we are ignoring the capacity of the cheaper scsi drives, but you dont really need speed for your mp3's and videos right?

While I know what you mean and agree, I will say that for real-time MPeg encoding or even video capture off my AIW 8500DV card, speed is very important. And for these applications, my IDE RAID0 array is far superior to my 15K Cheetah.

I don't see SCSI being worth the price for a single user system. If you're running a fileserver, then sure, SCSI all the way.

One question I've had on drives for a while: why is the cache so limited and apparently so expensive? If an 8 MB cache is so much better than a 2 MB, then why don't we have 64MB cache's? Is it some sort of special memory (maybe solid state)?

 

[Pariah]

One question I've had on drives for a while: why is the cache so limited and apparently so expensive? If an 8 MB cache is so much better than a 2 MB, then why don't we have 64MB cache's? Is it some sort of special memory (maybe solid state)?

If the cache is too large you would have to add some form of battery backup to the drive. With most people enabling write-back caching, if your system crashes, the possibility of losing 64MB of data would be very bad. You can't just slap extra cache on the drive either and expect miracles, all the caching algorithms have to be rewritten to take advantage of it as well.