This will never be settled! Do you use an all SCSI or all IDE based sytem and why?

[borealiss]

<< Wow something else SerialATA is bringing to the arena. >>

sorry, serial ata isn't even out yet. why not compare serial ata to the next revision of scsi then, which isn't even out yet, or the next version of firewire, which isn't even out yet. even when serial ata devices start showing up, its user base can't even be compared to the likes of scsi or eide. if serial ata was available in mass right now with wide support, then it might be a player, but until i start seeing them in computers and the peripherals that support it, then it's a non-issue.

 

[Sohcan]

<< The performance edge of getting a top SCSI disk over a top IDE disk erodes within maybe 12 months >>

As far as transfer rates go, that's generally true...the 75GXP's throughput isn't too far behind the Cheetah X15 (37MB/sec vs. 41 MB/sec at the end, 20MB/sec vs. 29 MB/sec at the beginning). But IDE drives still lag far behind in seek and access times: 8.5ms vs. 3.9ms seek times, 13.3ms vs. 6.8ms for access times. This is simply because IDE drives aren't made past 7200rpm, and the hard drive companies are not willing to make a 10,000rpm or 15,000rpm IDE drive. If they were to make one, and slap on a 5+ year warranty that come with most SCSI drives, guess what? The IDE drive would cost as much as a SCSI drive with similar specs.

note: the above specs were from Storagereview

 

[borealiss]

hanpan

i totally agree with you. how many people here that say &quot;scsi is not worth it&quot; have tried an all scsi system for a prolonged period? not that many i'm guessing. therefore they have nothing to compare the performance of eide to. this is like &quot;smp or not.&quot; those who use smp swear by it, those who say it's worthless have never used an smp system for prolonged period of time.


<< 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. >>

that's a lot of times to be upgrading your hard drives. i would think that if you just got a decent scsi setup, then the times you would need to upgrade would be reduced, and you might end up saving money, unless you have an ever growing need for large amounts of disk space. my hard drives are about 2 years old, and they're still pretty competitive as far as seek times with some of the best offerings eide drives have.

 

[Budman]

Looks like IDE is whipping SCSI's a$$ in the poll.

 

[Cyberian]

&quot;I once had a 3 month old Maxtor IDE drive crap out on me, and I lost some important data. So I wanted to increase my reliability...&quot;

[I have been living in a cave in Nepal for a few years, so please excuse my stupid questions!]

Are the 'physical' SCSI drives actually more reliable than IDE?
(When I left, HDD's were RLL or MFM format!)

Anyone remember what S.C.S.I. stands for?

 

[Sohcan]

48% all IDE constitutes as whipping a$$? :Q Last time I checked, that's less than the majority...



<< Are the 'physical' SCSI drives actually more reliable than IDE? >>

There's nothing inherent to the SCSI interface that make the drives more reliable, but since the drives are aimed at the enterprise market, manufacturers make SCSI drives with higher manufacturing standards.

SCSI stands for Small Computer System Interface.

 

[Radboy]

Even if IDE drives were to achieve SCSI-like access times (which they won't), they'd still be connected to a single-tasking interface. SCSI is a multi-tasking interface.

In access times, how much progress have IDE drives made in the last two years? Almost none. Why do you think that is?

IDE drives are built - first &amp; foremost - with *value* (not performance) in mind. SCSI drives, on the other hand, are built - first and foremost - with *performance* in mind (not value).

Again, SCSI is not for everyone. It's for the performance-minded, while IDE is for the value-minded.

Is SCSI worth it? Obviously for some, but certainly not for everyone.

How many of the ppl who say SCSI isn't worth it (for them) have ever even tried it? How can someone who's never driven a Ferrari say it's not worth it?

 

[Budman]

That other result doesnt count,read the thread title.



<< Do you use an all SCSI or all IDE based sytem >>

 

[Sohcan]

Hey, NFS4 made the poll, not me. A majority of the people have a SCSI device in their system.

 

[Budman]

Having SOME scsi devices doesnt make it an ALL scsi system.

 

[Sohcan]

Touche. I'd be worried anyway if a majority of the people had all scsi...

 

[AdamK47]

Lets see... 13 hours since this thread has been up. 113 posts. Thats 1 post every 6 minutes 54 seconds. Duhang!

 

[BIGGDOG]

All my HDD are EIDE but.... I use SCSI for my cd burner and CD Rom as well as my zip drive. I am not sure how true it is but the reason for the SCSI roms are they are not supposed to take up cpu resources. True or not that is my reason

 

[Pariah]

&quot;In 6-12 months, I can sell the disk and upgrade to another ATA100 disk whose performance competes with today's top SCSI disks.&quot;

The Seagate Cheetah X15 was released more than 6 months ago. Is any IDE drive close to it now? Not in the slightest. There can be a 100GB/platter IDE drive and it will not compete with an X15. STR levels have gotten high enough that the point of diminishing returns has long come and gone. Without decreases in access time you will not see any significant increases in performance.

Cruise over to StorageReview and run a comparison on the X15 and the just released ATA Barracuda III. The STR of the 2 drives is very close, but look at the benchmarks. X15 wins across the board and by significant margins most of the time. Look at the IOMeter results, the Barracuda gets completely embarassed. The X15 almost triples the Barracuda in a number of tests.

As for those of you spending $300 on a SCSI controller. My question is why? You can pick up a Tekram U2W card for about $125 which is plenty fast for 2 top of the line SCSI drives.

One thing to add. Serial ATA has been mentioned a few times as the next big thing in ATA. Which in essence it is, but it will do nothing for performance which a lot of you seem to think. With both ATA and SCSI, the drives are the performance limiters today, not the interfaces. If you put an IDE drive on a SCSI interface it will not be any faster, just as it won't be any faster on a serial ATA interface.

 

[Informant X]

Oh hey guys...I don't know if any brought this up BUT did you know that the IDE version or Plextors 12X burner actually outperforms the SCSI version?

Hmmmmm..........

If anyone wants i'll dig up the comparasion...I think it was at storagereview...

 

[*kjm]

&quot;Looks like IDE is whipping SCSI's a$$ in the poll&quot;
That?s because 90% of this board uses IDE, go to a video capture board and see what happens. $300 for a controller? Are you nuts, maybe raid but not a normal controller.

 

[Leo V]

Why not just use an onboard SCSI controller? Even cheaper that way.

 

[ahfung]

All IDE

1. DIRT CHEAP!!!
2. REASONABLY FAST!!!
3. LESS PAIN IN THE ASS WHEN IT OBSOLESCENT/BURN OUT!!!
4. EVEN LESS PAIN IN THE ASS TO UPGRADE/REPLACE!!!

A jillion more reasons skipped for your convenience.

 

[Hanpan]

Leo V that's what i'm saying

 

[Informant X]

Yeah over at storagereview you can see the 12/10/32A which TOTALLY outperforms the SCSI version in EVERY category...EVERY! (If my memory serves me correctly) Now ofcourse some of those are tests using CDRW so the IDE version should be faster being it is faster. (10 as compared to SCSI's 4) But a lot of them were read tests, or extraction test, or CD copy tests etc. And again i reiterate this the IDE version beats the SCSI across the board.

As for Leo........



<< Why not just use an onboard SCSI controller? Even cheaper that way. >>



Because in most cases it's not economically worth it. If someone was to get a board with onboard SCSI then what would happen when they upgrade? They'd have to spend another 100+ dollars on a board with onboard SCSI, instead of 200 once for a card. So bascially you'd never want to upgrade.

 

[Hanpan]

Have you ever considered that this is because the drive has been released longer and has more mature firmware.

Just a question

 

[Pariah]

&quot;Yeah over at storagereview you can see the 12/10/32A which TOTALLY outperforms the SCSI version in EVERY category...EVERY!&quot;

Though I agree SCSI is no longer the favored CDRW interface, I myself having switched back to IDE, you need to look at the comparison page again. The SCSI version performs better in more of the tests than the IDE drive. It would help if you compared the same drives (12x10x32 IDE vs 12x10x32 SCSI), making the comparison more valid.

 

[Informant X]

Umm actually Hanpan the SCSI version was out first!

 

[Radboy]

This is the SCSI adapter Pariah &amp; I have. $127. Have had mine for >2 years .. still no need to upgrade (good longevity/value). I've upgraded all the IDE drives I bought 2 years ago (now have 45GB IBM 75GXPs) .. but the SCSI drives I bought over 2 years ago still perform better than my new IDE drives.

You don't need to upgrade SCSI nearly as often .. which increases its value.

Today's U160 cards (single-handedly) exceed the bandwidth of the entire PCI bus combined. U320 is in the pipe.

SCSI's not for everyone.

 

[sd]

All IDE. The way I upgrade, I'd be broke with SCSI.