All scsi here, Adaptec 39160 with X-15 Cheetah, two 10,000rpm Cheetah's & a 50gig Barracuda on channel B, a Plextor 12/4/32 & a UW40x Plextor on channel A, a scsi zip & scsi scanner on an Adaptec 2910.
IDE, wish i could get an all scsi system to rich for my blood i can barely keep ip with the costsw of my ide system
<< Is SCSI REALLY worth that kind of money? >>
It all depends on how big your budget is, but i would rather advise someone to get a single drive SCSI setup than a (IMO) totally worthless IDE RAID setup...
SCSI does have it's advantages, to ignore them is just stupid, IDE might be all that you need right now, but SCSI will always be the better choice.
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
<< two failed WD enterprise harddrives later i quit scsi >>
First of all, WD drives are bad news, both SCSI and IDE drives have the highest failure rates of all drives that i have tested (and i have tested 60 000 drives) so you cannot base your SCSI experience upon that, maybe you should base your WD experience upon that instead, does this make sense to you??
SCSI is more reliable, there is no question about that.
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
<<I currently have both in my rig. I know that IDE has come along way when it comes to CD-RWs, but I can be burning CD to CD-RW and be playing a DVD and playing games and surfing the Web without having to worry about CPU utlizations. SCSi still uses the CPU cycles a lot less than IDE. That's the reason I have both.>>
Rahvin, Hello? It was to prove a point. Also notice the can?
Rahvin, Hello? It was to prove a point. Also notice the can?
<< Anyhow, the 2 big advantages to SCSI are having many many devices and super fast disks.... >>
There is one more, the cpu usage, the (usually) better quality, the non-existing problems with controllers incompatability (if you configure them correctly of course)
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
I use a hybrid, take the best of both world. SCSI for OS/apps and other important files. Large IDE for cheap no critical mass storage.
"There is one more, the cpu usage, the (usually) better quality, the non-existing problems with controllers incompatability (if you configure them correctly of course)"
I'd stop speaking for PC Resources if you believe statements like that to be true.
"There is one more, the cpu usage, the (usually) better quality, the non-existing problems with controllers incompatability (if you configure them correctly of course)"
I'd stop speaking for PC Resources if you believe statements like that to be true.
I've got a nearly all SCSI system.
Adaptec 3200S RAID controller for hard drives
Adaptec 29160 controller for everything else (could get away with a much lower end card, but I had this one before I got the RAID card)
2 IBM Ultrastar 18LZX 10k drives
2 Seagate Cheetah 9LP 10k drives
1 Quantum Atlas 10k drive
2 Plextor Plexwriter 8/20 CD-Rs
1 Plextor Ultraplex 40xmax CD-ROM
1 Pioneer 304S 10x SCSI DVD-ROM
1 DDS2 DAT Tape drive
1 Iomega ZipCD 12/10/32 (IDE)
I recently added the iomega drive, due to the incredible deal at compusa, I have regretted it ever since, because the drive is significantly faster than the 8x drives, enough to entice me to use it, but every time I do, my CPU utilization spikes to approx. 40%. But aside from the CPU issue, and the speed, I'd need 6 IDE channels to fit all these devices, vs. a single SCSI channel (although I'm using 2 so I can take advantage of hardware RAID). I changed over from SCSI to IDE years ago, and was incredibly surprised at how much more responsive my system was. Back then, the hard drive I had was so much faster, I was completely stunned. Now my drives are all a little old, the Atlas 10k is the newest I have, and it's a generation old, soon to be 2 generations old. Nonetheless, my harddrives easily outperform any of my friend's computers, most of which are running on 75GXP drives, which is the fastest IDE drive that I'm aware of. As for serial ATA, it doesn't seem like anything that exciting to me, since IDE drives are not capable of using 150MB/sec, and if they stick to the 2 drives per channel technology, it'll still be way too little. If it uses signaling similar to IDE, then drives will have to take turns using bandwidth on the channel, unlike SCSI. By the time it's out, Ultra 320 SCSI will most likely be available, but even so my U160 SCSI that was out a year or two ago is still faster than serial ATA. My drives are already hot swappable thanks to my SCA backplane, so the only new feature would be the small cables. I have a very large case which helps reduce clutter and increase air flow, but I would still appreciate the serial ATA cables, which appears to be the only worthwhile advantage to serial ATA.
SCSI is definately not for everyone, due to cost. I see too many people here insulting SCSI who have obviously never used it. Anyone who thinks it's not worth the money has never used an up to date SCSI system. As for whether it's worth it to individual people is based on what tasks they perform on their system, and what their budget is.
Adaptec 3200S RAID controller for hard drives
Adaptec 29160 controller for everything else (could get away with a much lower end card, but I had this one before I got the RAID card)
2 IBM Ultrastar 18LZX 10k drives
2 Seagate Cheetah 9LP 10k drives
1 Quantum Atlas 10k drive
2 Plextor Plexwriter 8/20 CD-Rs
1 Plextor Ultraplex 40xmax CD-ROM
1 Pioneer 304S 10x SCSI DVD-ROM
1 DDS2 DAT Tape drive
1 Iomega ZipCD 12/10/32 (IDE)
I recently added the iomega drive, due to the incredible deal at compusa, I have regretted it ever since, because the drive is significantly faster than the 8x drives, enough to entice me to use it, but every time I do, my CPU utilization spikes to approx. 40%. But aside from the CPU issue, and the speed, I'd need 6 IDE channels to fit all these devices, vs. a single SCSI channel (although I'm using 2 so I can take advantage of hardware RAID). I changed over from SCSI to IDE years ago, and was incredibly surprised at how much more responsive my system was. Back then, the hard drive I had was so much faster, I was completely stunned. Now my drives are all a little old, the Atlas 10k is the newest I have, and it's a generation old, soon to be 2 generations old. Nonetheless, my harddrives easily outperform any of my friend's computers, most of which are running on 75GXP drives, which is the fastest IDE drive that I'm aware of. As for serial ATA, it doesn't seem like anything that exciting to me, since IDE drives are not capable of using 150MB/sec, and if they stick to the 2 drives per channel technology, it'll still be way too little. If it uses signaling similar to IDE, then drives will have to take turns using bandwidth on the channel, unlike SCSI. By the time it's out, Ultra 320 SCSI will most likely be available, but even so my U160 SCSI that was out a year or two ago is still faster than serial ATA. My drives are already hot swappable thanks to my SCA backplane, so the only new feature would be the small cables. I have a very large case which helps reduce clutter and increase air flow, but I would still appreciate the serial ATA cables, which appears to be the only worthwhile advantage to serial ATA.
SCSI is definately not for everyone, due to cost. I see too many people here insulting SCSI who have obviously never used it. Anyone who thinks it's not worth the money has never used an up to date SCSI system. As for whether it's worth it to individual people is based on what tasks they perform on their system, and what their budget is.
<< Not everyone is that rich or that lucky >>
Nah, i know, it is a very expensive setup... But i do like it... and so would you...
Patrick Palm
Am speaking for PC Resources
i guess SCSI is still too expensive for the normal guy. people would rather spend on the cpu and the video card and sound cards and such. SCSI seems like a great leap forward.
My 30 GB 7200 rpm IBM is IDE and I'm happy enough with its performance. No need for the expense of SCSI.
<<Rahvin, Hello? It was to prove a point. Also notice the can?>>
So you CAN do something that is so impracticle that you would never even attempt it, and this makes your system "worth" it? My gawd you should be a debate team, you present such a clear and concise arguement for the benifits of SCSI. LMAO.
So you CAN do something that is so impracticle that you would never even attempt it, and this makes your system "worth" it? My gawd you should be a debate team, you present such a clear and concise arguement for the benifits of SCSI. LMAO.
I can attest to this. My system is a KT7-RAID. I have had both ide RAID W/two IBM 7200rpm drives & all scsi with an X-15 15,000rpm boot drive in this same system.
The system is NOTICABELY more responsive with the X-15. I assume this is because the seek time is so much faster than any ide RAID setup. It may not benchmark alot faster, but it sure as hell feels quicker.
The system is NOTICABELY more responsive with the X-15. I assume this is because the seek time is so much faster than any ide RAID setup. It may not benchmark alot faster, but it sure as hell feels quicker.
Exerb taken from my post in the thread that started this
This argument reminds me of smp. Those who have never experienced it say it's too expensive etc but those who run smp 90% of those who i have talked to swear smp is better. Why because they have seen both. How many of you condemming scsi have tried it and can therefore make a valid conclusion. We all know most synthetic benchmarks mean little in real life performance. IT is however granted that the cpu utilization issue is now almost gone. Still i think all you who think scsi "sucks" should go out and try it and then make an informed desicion. For those who have tried scsi and stand by your claim that scsi is worthless i can only say that having examined the facts and reasoned rationally if this is the conlusion you come to then stick wiht it. However for those who have not informed themselves I would reserve judgement untill you have experienced both. This is not to say that scsi is the end all be all however it is faster in a way that has to be experienced much the same way one cannot accuratly describe the feeling of parachuting or cliff diving to someone who hasn't attempted something similar.
This argument reminds me of smp. Those who have never experienced it say it's too expensive etc but those who run smp 90% of those who i have talked to swear smp is better. Why because they have seen both. How many of you condemming scsi have tried it and can therefore make a valid conclusion. We all know most synthetic benchmarks mean little in real life performance. IT is however granted that the cpu utilization issue is now almost gone. Still i think all you who think scsi "sucks" should go out and try it and then make an informed desicion. For those who have tried scsi and stand by your claim that scsi is worthless i can only say that having examined the facts and reasoned rationally if this is the conlusion you come to then stick wiht it. However for those who have not informed themselves I would reserve judgement untill you have experienced both. This is not to say that scsi is the end all be all however it is faster in a way that has to be experienced much the same way one cannot accuratly describe the feeling of parachuting or cliff diving to someone who hasn't attempted something similar.
IDE all the way.
SCSI to most users here on the forums is a luxary and I believe people only use it because they have either:
1)Ran out of IDE controllers
2)Are diehard computer geeks who have no lives other than sitting around opening 30 IE windows while playing Quake3 and burning a CD just to show off thier computer geek friends how multitaskable thier computer is because it's SCSI.
or
Sit around and brag all day to other people because his SCSI hard drive is using %2 of CPU utilization while the other person's IDE hard drive is using %5.
SCSI to most users here on the forums is a luxary and I believe people only use it because they have either:
1)Ran out of IDE controllers
2)Are diehard computer geeks who have no lives other than sitting around opening 30 IE windows while playing Quake3 and burning a CD just to show off thier computer geek friends how multitaskable thier computer is because it's SCSI.
or
Sit around and brag all day to other people because his SCSI hard drive is using %2 of CPU utilization while the other person's IDE hard drive is using %5.
I can see both points to this debate. I started my own business and had to drop my SCSI 7200 drives because of the cost to upgrade. Now that I am doing well I went back to SCSI 4 days ago. I got a two 18XL?s 10k rpm drives. Let me tell you I missed my old SCSI setup all along and when Radboy told you it is like going from a 56k modem to cable he knows what he is talking about. By the way thanks for the help Rad. I run Win2000 and when I booted or opened programs I had to sit and watch now if I blink I missed them opening. Not much for some people but I am on the system doing work around 6 hours a day after my day job and I can tell you I don?t have time to wait around. If you cant afford SCSI get IDE if you can get it and you will never turn back. IDE is great for mass storage (except video) because for any of us to get a 70+ gig SCSI is out of the question unless you are making good money using it.
Alrite, well I use 100% IDE, the reason behind it... I don't have the $$$ to spend on SCSI drives/controller cards. Simple as that, and personally, my IDE setup does all I need it do, and at a good speed.
--Mark
--Mark
So what we have "settled" with all these posts?
1. SCSI offers better performance than IDE.
2. SCSI costs more than IDE.
3. SCSI is not for everyone.
Is there anything we didn't know already?
1. SCSI offers better performance than IDE.
2. SCSI costs more than IDE.
3. SCSI is not for everyone.
Is there anything we didn't know already?
Yep, to stay on the bleeding edge of EIDE is cheap (just about free) and easy (it almost happens automatically). You just make sure to buy a board with the latest ATA standard. With scuzzy, you must pay a hefty tribute each time to the Gods at Adaptec. I don't particularly enjoy the idea of paying them $300 everytime they boost scsi bandwidth.
MereMortal
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 2000
- 1,919
- 2
- 81
Both my systems are pure SCSI. Mainly because the ladies dig it. What woman wouldn't be impressed with the line, "Hey baby, wanna go back to my place and get SCSI?"
I'll elaborate on my IDE argument:
The performance edge of getting a top SCSI disk over a top IDE disk erodes within maybe 12 months (see Tomzilla's recent SCSI vs. IDE comparison). This is roughly how frequently I upgrade my main disk. I got the Quantum KA (ATA66/7200RPM ex-champ) when that came out, later the Quantum LM (arguably current IDE speed champ), now the IBM 75GXP (IDE top tier, and quiet). In 6-12 months, I can sell the disk and upgrade to another ATA100 disk whose performance competes with today's top SCSI disks. Then Serial ATA may finally arrive.
Given the speed of hard disk improvement, IMHO getting a top-of-the-line SCSI disk is akin to buying a GeForce2 Ultra. It's only a good investment if you can afford to upgrade later. Otherwise, you could theoretically get *better* performance out of IDE storage media, over time!
Having said that, I'd still go all-SCSI if I had a loose $500 lying around
The performance edge of getting a top SCSI disk over a top IDE disk erodes within maybe 12 months (see Tomzilla's recent SCSI vs. IDE comparison). This is roughly how frequently I upgrade my main disk. I got the Quantum KA (ATA66/7200RPM ex-champ) when that came out, later the Quantum LM (arguably current IDE speed champ), now the IBM 75GXP (IDE top tier, and quiet). In 6-12 months, I can sell the disk and upgrade to another ATA100 disk whose performance competes with today's top SCSI disks. Then Serial ATA may finally arrive.
Given the speed of hard disk improvement, IMHO getting a top-of-the-line SCSI disk is akin to buying a GeForce2 Ultra. It's only a good investment if you can afford to upgrade later. Otherwise, you could theoretically get *better* performance out of IDE storage media, over time!
Having said that, I'd still go all-SCSI if I had a loose $500 lying around
IDE..because SCSI is just too expensive. Plus, I like buying good hardware and spending 2-300 bux on a good adaptec scsi card is just money i could use to buy more ram or a new cpu!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter