Should I be using SCSI?

[DCypher]

Just curious. I always see 10K raptors, and everyone seems to goggle over them. But then I see 15K SCSI's and it seems like the hype is a bit less? Any reasons? Thanks.

 

[mc866]

SCSI seems to be more for the enterprise business sector, not many people use them at home because of the cost. I think that?s why you don't hear about them as much, just my $.02.

 

[bdww00]

did u mention the controllers and fancy ribbon cables they have?

 

[CalvinHobbes]

It does cost more but they have great performance. I've considered it for my next game PC. Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) is the lastest and greatest.

 

[John]

If you have to ask, no....scsi is not for you.

 

[Ken90630]

Yeah, the negatives are that they're expensive (particularly when you factor in the controllers) and they run hotter than 'regular' HDs. But at 15K rpm, performance is smokin' fast. Seek times are typically ~4ms, I think, which is just blazing. :thumbsup:

 

[GrammatonJP]

No, scsi is outdated.. SAS is the next gen.. raw speed, 15k is fast.. but there are many factors that you need..

also most scsi users have multiple drives in raid, etc..

 

[biostud]

they generate more noise as well, and for regular users a few secs shaved of windows + games loading time is definately not worth the cash, rather spend the money somewhere else.

 

[Bobthelost]

No

Next question?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

No, SCSI hard drives are optimized (in the drive firmware) for multi-user server operations. For single person use, the 10K raptor is as fast or faster then the current 15K SCSI drives. Plus, you would need to get a SCSI controller and cable for any SCSI drives, which owould increase the cost even more over a raptor.

If you want a fast HD, get the 150Gig Raptor.

Oh, and with SAS, SATA, SATA II, SCSI.....those are just interfaces that show the max speed of the interface. That has nothing to do with how fast the HD itself can send data over it. So a 15K HD is still limited to just under 100Mb/s (current gen I believe max out ~95Mb/s ) no matter how fast the interface is.

 

[essasin]

Ive got a jbod of 15k cheetahs its fast...but I spent A LOT on a good scsi controller.

 

[bob4432]

here is the reality.

i have used 10 and 15k scsi, currently using 10k. use them in a single drive setup in a desktop machine is not a bad setup at all, get a 1gen old u320 68pin drive, a u160 card and cable.

u320 hdds are backwards compatible with the u160 cards and since you will only be using 1 hdd, u160 is more than enough bandwidth for even the fastest 15k u320 hdds which will max out somewhere between 70-90MB/s. plus 32bit pci slots max out at ~125MB/s anwyay which is a consideration if you run GbE as they are usually on the same bus.

are they warmer - yes, active cooling is recommended, but i use active cooling on all of my hdds so it is no big deal for me

are they louder - not the newer generations. some of the older u160 10k sound like a circular saw spinning up and when writing sound like a circular saw going through wood, but the newer gens are not really any louder than a 7.2k while idling and only slightly louder when accessing data.

problem is that they are usually more expensive and your best price/size ratio for the scsi hdds is usually the 36GB units. i have seen 15k 36GB 1gen old hdds for ~$130, pick up a u160 card for ~$30 and a cable with terminator for ~$15 and you are good to go.

that being said the 150GB raptors are nice and easy for those that think scsi is a "has been" technology, which it is not, but believe what you want

people who think you need to spend hundreds of $$$ on special cards and cables for a non-raid scsi setup just don't know what they are talking about.

my ideal setup would be to replace my 10k 36GB with a 15k 36GB and then always have a large pata/sata hdd for storage. once you go over 36GB in scsi price goes up through the roof unless you get old drives, which are the ones that are hot and loud.

 

[Missing Ghost]

I try to use scsi/sas in all my computers when the budget permits it. I buy all my stuff on ebay. I got 10x 36GB 10krpms that were produced in 2004/2005 for around 30-35$ CAN + shipping each.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Missing Ghost
I try to use scsi/sas in all my computers when the budget permits it. I buy all my stuff on ebay. I got 10x 36GB 10krpms that were produced in 2004/2005 for around 30-35$ CAN + shipping each.

to bad the d@mn sas controllers are so expensive....

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
No, SCSI hard drives are optimized (in the drive firmware) for multi-user server operations. For single person use, the 10K raptor is as fast or faster then the current 15K SCSI drives. Plus, you would need to get a SCSI controller and cable for any SCSI drives, which owould increase the cost even more over a raptor.

If you want a fast HD, get the 150Gig Raptor...

This is true, as seen in the 150GB Raptor benchmarks at StorageReview. I had considered a 15KRPM SAS setup before seeing the results from the new Raptor (I may consider it again depending on how the Seagate 15K.5 series performs). However, for the time, my first-gen 36GB Raptor is performing adequately, so it would be better for me to wait another year or so to see what happens in the realm of "affordable" SSDs (which would be SATA, by the way).

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
No, SCSI hard drives are optimized (in the drive firmware) for multi-user server operations. For single person use, the 10K raptor is as fast or faster then the current 15K SCSI drives. Plus, you would need to get a SCSI controller and cable for any SCSI drives, which owould increase the cost even more over a raptor.

If you want a fast HD, get the 150Gig Raptor...

This is true, as seen in the 150GB Raptor benchmarks at StorageReview. I had considered a 15KRPM SAS setup before seeing the results from the new Raptor (I may consider it again depending on how the Seagate 15K.5 series performs). However, for the time, my first-gen 36GB Raptor is performing adequately, so it would be better for me to wait another year or so to see what happens in the realm of "affordable" SSDs (which would be SATA, by the way).

sas is not the way to go because controllers are tooooo expensive unless you peeps know something i don't. just use a u160 card in a pci slot and you will be good to go for cheap - look for a lsiu160, adaptec 19160, 29160, 39160 and you will be setup.

 

[pkme2]

I used SCSI drives before and they were expensive.
Today we don't need to go scsi because of the new innovations in IDE, and with SATA we got what's needed cheaply. I'm afraid that SCSI is for a few and the majority will go SATA.

 

[GrammatonJP]

SCSI was never design for the home user, it just gotten a lot cheaper and people got a lot richer to venture into scsi land. SAS is just expanded scsi so that we can add more drives. A business have different requirements than the home user.

SCSI for business
- RAID
- Speed
- Reliability/Warranty

RAID - ability to chain up more than 1 drive for storage needs, ability to provide redudancy

Speed - SCSI traditional have faster speed, only because business do not care about price, the faster they complete their job, the more money they can make

Reliability - 5 yr warranty and they rarely fail. Even when they do, it's always protected.

----

Like bob said, you do not need scsi..

I'm in a migration phase.. I had 7 10k 146gb, 6 15k 73gb HS and 14 15k 73gb HS (scsi enclosure) with dual bus. W/Dual PCI-X raid adapter.

I had a huge need for storage but with today's high capacity sata drives, I been migrating my data servers off SCSI.

1. Power - You do NOT want to pay power
2. Noise - Ever heard 25 drive powering up at once ? its like a jet taking off
3. Point of failure - looking at my system, there ARE multiple points of failure, each expensive to fix.

Migration process
5 of the 7 146gb sold - keeping 2 for scratch disk
6 15k 73gb - retired into a P3 sever for tape and disk backups
14 15k 73gb enclosure - being sold on ebay, this guy will bring in 3-4k

New server
1 - 1u server using WD 500GB RE2 raid edition, on an areca pci-x controller
1 - 1u server waiting for Barracuda ES 750GB or higher drives. ES are enterprise storage, made for 100% duty at 24/7.. I rather have some TB hdd in pair for redudancy

2 server and 4 drives can cover my storage needs and I don't have to suffer with all the power requirement and noise.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: bob4432
sas is not the way to go because controllers are tooooo expensive unless you peeps know something i don't. just use a u160 card in a pci slot and you will be good to go for cheap - look for a lsiu160, adaptec 19160, 29160, 39160 and you will be setup.

SAS is great because SAS controllers can be used with SATA drives (not the other way around though, of course). I was thinking of using a 15k SAS drive for the OS and apps, and a few high-capacity SATA drives in RAID5 for data storage - all on a PCIe SAS RAID HBA. However, even if I end up doing SATA RAID or plain SCSI using less expensive equipment (which is more likely), I'm going to use a PCIe controller because PCI is too slow - having a very fast SCSI drive on the PCI bus would simply starve everything else for bandwidth.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: bob4432
sas is not the way to go because controllers are tooooo expensive unless you peeps know something i don't. just use a u160 card in a pci slot and you will be good to go for cheap - look for a lsiu160, adaptec 19160, 29160, 39160 and you will be setup.

SAS is great because SAS controllers can be used with SATA drives (not the other way around though, of course). I was thinking of using a 15k SAS drive for the OS and apps, and a few high-capacity SATA drives in RAID5 for data storage - all on a PCIe SAS RAID HBA. However, even if I end up doing SATA RAID or plain SCSI using less expensive equipment (which is more likely), I'm going to use a PCIe controller because PCI is too slow - having a very fast SCSI drive on the PCI bus would simply starve everything else for bandwidth.

i understand what you are saying but using the sas controllers puts the price way back up in the air again. the problem is not paying $300 for a pci-e controller. if you find a cheap, non-raid pci-e u320/u160 let me know

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: GrammatonJP
SCSI was never design for the home user, it just gotten a lot cheaper and people got a lot richer to venture into scsi land. SAS is just expanded scsi so that we can add more drives. A business have different requirements than the home user.

SCSI for business
- RAID
- Speed
- Reliability/Warranty

RAID - ability to chain up more than 1 drive for storage needs, ability to provide redudancy

Speed - SCSI traditional have faster speed, only because business do not care about price, the faster they complete their job, the more money they can make

Reliability - 5 yr warranty and they rarely fail. Even when they do, it's always protected.

----

Like bob said, you do not need scsi..

I'm in a migration phase.. I had 7 10k 146gb, 6 15k 73gb HS and 14 15k 73gb HS (scsi enclosure) with dual bus. W/Dual PCI-X raid adapter.

I had a huge need for storage but with today's high capacity sata drives, I been migrating my data servers off SCSI.

1. Power - You do NOT want to pay power
2. Noise - Ever heard 25 drive powering up at once ? its like a jet taking off
3. Point of failure - looking at my system, there ARE multiple points of failure, each expensive to fix.

Migration process
5 of the 7 146gb sold - keeping 2 for scratch disk
6 15k 73gb - retired into a P3 sever for tape and disk backups
14 15k 73gb enclosure - being sold on ebay, this guy will bring in 3-4k

New server
1 - 1u server using WD 500GB RE2 raid edition, on an areca pci-x controller
1 - 1u server waiting for Barracuda ES 750GB or higher drives. ES are enterprise storage, made for 100% duty at 24/7.. I rather have some TB hdd in pair for redudancy

2 server and 4 drives can cover my storage needs and I don't have to suffer with all the power requirement and noise.

my thoughts were more along the lines of a fast os/app drive with a large ide storage drive, not multi drive setups that you explain. the heat alone from all of your 15k hdds would heat an igloo

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

No matter what interface you use (SAS, SATA, PATA, SCSI), the limiting factor is the actual hard drive itself (platter density and actuator speed). If you took a 15K Atlas II and somehow made it into a SATA drive, the performance would not change, since the hard drive is the limiting factor. All the current interfaces are more then fast enough for any of today's hard drives.

Also, buying older model SCSI drives to save costs is usually not a good idea, since older models are always slower then the newr ones, and are hotter and louder in general. Current 15K SCSI drives do't beat a Raptor for a single user, so using an older generation SCSI drives makes the raptor look even faster.

If someone really feels they have to have a SCSI HD, get a cheap LSI or adaptec U160 PCI card, and that is all you need. One SCSI drive won't break 100Mb/s transfer, and PCI's practical limit is about 100Mb/s as well (accounting for some overhead). Buy a 15K MAU or Atlas II for a boot disk, and a large SATA/PATA drive for storage and the like. But this will cost more then a raptor, and won't give you any better performance.

 

[Zepper]

Reliability is SCSI's one big redeeming factor these days. SCSI just recently broke the 300GB per drive barrier. SCSI is expensive unless you can use older generation stuff. SCSI still has the fastest random access time. Seagate's recently announced 15k, perp recording SCSI drive breaks the 100MB/sec barrier for a single drive (~125MB/sec on the outer cylinders) . A pair of SATA in RAID-0 can barely keep up with that. But you need a fat wallet to afford one.

I've had either three or four small SCSI drives in my system for several years and have not had any failure (and most were used when I got them), but I don't think I'd be looking at SCSI any more unless I was running a server and needed the fast random access time.

A pair of SATA drives in RAID-0 really make most single-user machines sing and beat any single SCSI drive both in sustained transfer rate and cost. But you REALLY MUST keep good backups if you run RAID-0. "Running RAID-0 without a good verified backup is like flying experimental aircraft without a parachute." (c) ME some years ago.

.bh.