should I go raptor or SCSI?

[mcveigh]

OK I am planning my next upgrade.
it will most likely be a 865PE board but maybe a nforce2.

for my boot drive should I go raptor or scsi? I already have a tekram U160 controller (DC-390U3W) and a couple 10k rpm drives. I'd want to get a new drive only and not a new controller as well.

Seagate Cheetah 15K.3, 18.4 GB, Ultra320 Wide LVD SCSI-3, 15,000 RPM, 3.6 ms seek, 8 MB cache, A/V rated, 3.5" LP, 68 pin interface, 5-year warranty.---$209.00 from hypermicro

vs.

A WD 10k rpm raptor from newegg for about 140.


is it not worth it unless I getan U320 controller as well?

 

[davidme]

If you can get the serial interface I'd get the raptor.
I honestly think think that with the steps that serial
has made of late, that it will surpass speed and reliability very soon
Not withstanding the fact that it is far cheaper, soon to be standard
in all computers, and you wont have to deal with the "poosible"
headaches that come with SCSI.

In short Raptor.

try here for 3 pages of reliable benchmarks

Text

 

[CanadianBacon]

The 15k.3 and the WD 10K are a different class altogether. WAYYY different.

And you will have no real need for u320 unless you're pushing that much bandwidth .... like in a RAID array, otherwise no. The 15k.3, although fast, only pushes 80MB/s on the outer platters. Don't bother.

I went the SCSI route myself. I have teh 36gig 15k.3, 9 gig quantum 10K II, and 73.4 gig Maxtor 10K III.

I'm a fan of SCSI, you see.

To reply to the post above, the raptor is build upon a SCSI drive. SATA will never be MORE reliable than SCSI, only the same. I can't imagine consumer-level hardware ever beating out enterprise-level technology. ever.

And you will have no fewer headaches with SATA than you do with SCSI. With win2K you still need the driver disk for both.

 

[davidme]

[To reply to the post above, the raptor is build upon a SCSI drive. SATA will never be MORE reliable than SCSI, only the same. I can't imagine consumer-level hardware ever beating out enterprise-level technology. ever.

And you will have no fewer headaches with SATA than you do with SCSI. With win2K you still need the driver disk for both.

Apparently I am underinformed.
I did not assume he was using win2k as he did not say so
I do believe this driver disk is not needed for XP but then
again I've been wrong one before as I was unaware that
SATA was built using the SCSI technology

As far as reliability goes. I am speaking from my own trials with SCSI
In which the speed of SCSI was not worth the headaches i endured
So 2 years ago I converted to ATA drives.
while in these 2 years i've had 2 hard drives crash on me. I am one of the anal few that back up once a week so it was not too much of a hardship.

Thank you

 

[CanadianBacon]

Apparently, you are misinformed. The Raptor is built off of an older SCSI platform. The hardware is identical, the interface is different. That is where the two technologies differ. I can do more research and find out more info if you're still skeptical.

My Win2K reference was about the only "headache" I've ever had with SCSI. The small pins on their connectors are only a headache if you don't take the care to put them in properly and with care. Changing the ID's on them is childs play as well. You are correct in saying you don't need a driver disk for SCSI in XP. I cannot speak for SATA though .... so I won't comment on that if I don't know for sure.

I've never had one of the 5 SCSI drives I own die on me in the last 4 years.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Ok, heres the deal. The SCSI drive will be faster, but the Raptor gives more performance for the money. The Seagate will a lso have a much lower response time making the system feel more responsive. Personally, I'd get the Seagate because it seems to be in your range and gives more performance.

In terms of the controller card, you should be fine, you won't be bottlenecked with a U160 controller, atleast not with a single drive and that too in a desktop/workstation enviroment. Whats are your current 10k rpm drives? You may want to get two or three of those and do a Raid setup or something. If you want to go Raid for even more performance, you'll need a card with Raid 5 compatibility unless you're fine running Raid 0.

If it were my choice, I'd look into the raid incase you get a better deal there with your current drives, otherwise I'd go with the Seagate.

Also, the Seagate drive will maintain value much longer IMO because if you look at the 15k.3 history, they are pretty steady because I don't see 20,000 rpm drives coming anytime soon, so should you ever sell it, it will sell for a higher percentage of the purchase price, than say, the Raptor.

 

[Wolfsraider]

scsi still gets my vote even over the raptor

and the 15k3 makes it even sweeter lol

if you had to buy a controller maybe but as you already own 1 make use of it

mike

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: CanadianBacon
Apparently, you are misinformed. The Raptor is built off of an older SCSI platform. The hardware is identical, the interface is different. That is where the two technologies differ. I can do more research and find out more info if you're still skeptical.

Please do, because I'm skeptical.

 

[Rotax]

i'd say go scsi, since ya got the card n all. i'm curious, why don't they build 10k ata drives?? because we wouldn't 'use/need' the speed? if thats that case thats bs, whos to say we don't or do need the speed of a 3g+ cpu, etc. my next upgrade will most likely be a hd after i get my mobo/cpu/memory, and i plan to (at this time) go with a raptor just because its cheaper (w/ onboard sata) and will be much > my 7200rpm 2mb cache ibm. =P prob take the advice of many and use the raptor for os/system, and 60gb for storage as that seems most logical. only have a 15gb system partition the way it is, 36gb will be HUGE. =) lol

i still am a believer that scsi is > all (at least at this time), its hard to beat really..

 

[Pariah]

It's not. WD hasn't had a SCSI division for years. Looking at the performance characteristics of the Raptor, it's pretty clear they didn't keep any of those engineers around.

Since you already have the controller, I would definitely go SCSI. The Fujitsu MAS is $196 at Newegg w/ free shipping and is the fastest drive currently available.

 

[earthman]

The reason they don't build 10k ATA drives (yet) is not so much the speed issue, its incremental, but the noise and heat. Most people would object to the whine and you start to need fans on the drives at that speed. I have two fans in front of my drive bay to hold it at 105 degrees, with the fans off, it rises to almost 140. (distributed computing, no spin-down)

 

[randumb]

I would consider getting a Maxtor Atlas 15k over a Seagate. Read StorageReview's Article on it.

From the article:
Overall, the Atlas 15k represents an admirable first entry into the market by Maxtor. Building on techniques refined over four generations of 10,000 RPM drives, the Atlas 15k delivers exceptional server performance that rivals and in some cases surpasses the Seagate Cheetah 15k.3. Further, when it comes to desktop performance, there is little doubt that the Atlas is numero uno. While Fujitsu's 15,000 RPM MAS3735 lurks on the horizon, the Atlas 15k is and will remain a solid choice for all applications that require best-of-breed performance.

Newegg Pricing

 

[sharkeeper]

OEM(Drive alone) 1 Year Manufacturer Warranty Model#: 8C018J0 -

There is no way I would buy that with a one year warranty! SCSI drives should always have a 5 year warranty!

Caveat Emptor!

-DAK-

 

[mcveigh]

thanks for the info guys!
BTW this would be for XP pro

EDIT: my 10k drives are a 9gb and a 18gb, so to do a raid array I really need to get new drives

edit2: how about this

Seagate Cheetah X15 15,000rpm SCSI 160LVD 18.4gb ST318452LW P/N: 9T4005-001

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Pariah
It's not. WD hasn't had a SCSI division for years. Looking at the performance characteristics of the Raptor, it's pretty clear they didn't keep any of those engineers around.

AFAIK, that is completely correct. I'd love to see CanadianBacon's "sources."

 

[rhawk79]

first of all, the newly released fujitsu mas3367 is faster than the cheetah. see storagereview.com...i upgraded from the cheetah to the fujitsu and it was a MAJOR upgrade. and guess what, same price!!

I don't think two raptors would be faster. my advice is forget the two raptors and just get the fujitsu. then you'd have your OS, apps/games/whatever...everything on the fastest hard drive on the planet.

the raptors in raid0 would only win in sequential transfer rates...and only on emormous files (hundreds of megs). for random reads and all other categories the fujitsu would win. and that would be more useful to the OS and your apps.

 

[FishTankX]

Is the XP write performance bug still around?

 

[mcveigh]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
Is the XP write performance bug still around?

I think it was fixed in SP1

 

[RanDum72]

The only real advantages of going SCSI in his situation. IMO, is better (or faster) access times. Throughput with SCSI, even with 15k rpm drives, would still be hampered by the PCI bus (unless he uses a motherboard with a 64-bit PCI). Two Raptors attached as RAID 0 arrays on the serial ATA RAID controller of the newer ICH5R south bridges would give U320 15k rpm drives a run for their money.

 

[mcveigh]

Originally posted by: RanDum72
The only real advantages of going SCSI in his situation. IMO, is better (or faster) access times. Throughput with SCSI, even with 15k rpm drives, would still be hampered by the PCI bus (unless he uses a motherboard with a 64-bit PCI). Two Raptors attached as RAID 0 arrays on the serial ATA RAID controller of the newer ICH5R south bridges would give U320 15k rpm drives a run for their money.

2 raptors would be nice but I am looking at single drive solutions right now. I am not planning on having having anything else on the PCI bus, except maybe a USB memorycard reader.

I'm still pondering......

 

[T9D]

..

 

[thorin]

mcveigh here's a Head-To-Head Raptor vs Maxtor Atlas 10k (best 10k SCSI) vs Cheetah 15k.3 for you to consider.

Thorin

 

[Pariah]

The Fujitsu MAS is the fastest drive available. The Atlas 10K IV review was posted first, and at the time was the fastest.

 

[DarkRipper]

How about CPU usage on the SATA compared to a SCSI setup?


DR

 

[mcveigh]

thanks for the link thorin, that laid things out nice.
that 15K.3 cheetah I posted on is currently FS in the FS/FT forum, I'm going to go check if it's still available.

but if I didn't have a SCSI card already I would 99% surely go for the raptor!