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

Pariah · Feb 1, 2001

"With SerialATA you can be reading from one drive while writing to the second on the same channel."

Yes, this is definitely true.

"At 10x my DVDROM hogs 13.8MB/s a little less then half what the top line IDE HDs take right now."

The only time your DVD drive will be above 1x is if you are ripping a DVD or using one of the 3 available data DVD's. How many DVD applications do you own? And I would be willing to wager ripping DVD's isn't a common activity (a few times a week) for most people.

"A 40x CDROM eats up 6MB/s let alone a 52x or 72x."

You only get 40 on the very outside of the disc if you get it at all, also assuming the disc is a full 650MB. My Plextor UW which performs better than spec averages just over 31x which equals under 5MB/s. On the inner most of the disc where there is always data, the rate drops under 3MB/s. This rate will have a minimal impact at most on your HD's peak transfer rate, inspite of the bus only being able to access one at a time.

". Now put a CDR/W in the mix, and any other removable storage...."

And how are you adding these to a channel that already has a HD and a DVD/CD drive on it?

"Look at this from simply a technology stand point."

Serial ATA is no doubt a step ahead of parallel ATA. No one will question this, but it is not exactly the holy grail of storage and even with its new found features (still a year away), it still cannot compete with SCSI from a purely technological standpoint. All Serial ATA does is bring ATA up to the level of SCSI in certain areas.

TheOverlord · Feb 1, 2001

w00t! my vote for IDE bumped its total up to 69! wait maybe i shouldnt be so excited over this...

haha, anyway i use IDE just because the benefits of SCSI are not worth the extra cost on my home sys...now when i get my new web/forum server going then ill use SCSI cuz it can take advantage of it...

slpaulson · Feb 1, 2001

I run an ide harddrive and a scsi dvd and burner.

Radboy · Feb 2, 2001

Just wanna say I appreciate the way Pariah & thorin debated the serial ATA point by focusing on the technology & didn't resort to name calling. Admirable. I enjoyed the exchange & learned a few things.

thorin · Feb 2, 2001

Pariah
"Serial ATA is no doubt a step ahead of parallel ATA. No one will question this, but it is not exactly the holy grail of storage and even with its new found features (still a year away), it still cannot compete with SCSI from a purely technological standpoint. All Serial ATA does is bring ATA up to the level of SCSI in certain areas. "

No one said it was the holy grail of storage, however it is a huge step in the right direction. And yes perhaps it can't directly compete with SCSI, but it'll come close, and by Gen 2 or 3 (SerialATA300/SerialATA600) I'm sure it may even surpass SCSI.

Your original statement was that it won't increase performance much over today's drives and interface(s). With IBM releasing drives now (next month) that will push 40MB/s, I'm sure we'll be pushing pretty close to 60MB/s or 70MB/s in 1.5 years. Assuming you are correct and you can only have 2 drives on a SerialATA channel this would allow a bandwidth of ~94MB/s* per drive. Even if drives didn't progress at all in the next 1.5yrs don't you think it would be a good performance boost to be able to transfer 40MB/s in both directions?

*(1.5Gbps = 1500Mbps = 187.5MBps / 2 = ~94MB/s)

Radboy
"Just wanna say I appreciate the way Pariah & thorin debated the serial ATA point by focusing on the technology & didn't resort to name calling. Admirable. I enjoyed the exchange & learned a few things."

Heh, thanks. That's the whole point of this board isn't it, to help people learn.

Thorin

Sir Fredrick · Feb 2, 2001

You can't get 187.5MBps on todays 32bit PCI BUS.

I don't know why serial ATA is even an issue since it's not even available yet.

>>>> And yes perhaps it can't directly compete with SCSI, but it'll come close, and by Gen 2 or 3 (SerialATA300/SerialATA600) I'm sure it may even surpass SCSI. <<<<<

How long do you think it will be before we seen generation 2 or 3 serial ATA?

We don't know what the real performance of serialATA will be, since it is not available yet. All we can do is speculate, which is pretty useless. U160 SCSI is available *now*. Who cares if generation 2 Serial ATA is just as good as today's U160SCSI, if it's not going to be available for 3 years? It's like never upgrading your computer because you know something faster and cheaper is right around the corner, which is always the case with nearly every component (except maybe the floppy drive).

Stytis · Feb 2, 2001

If I had the money for a SCSI, I'd have a car instead... a good one.

Sir Fredrick · Feb 2, 2001

$400 won't buy you a good car.

thorin · Feb 2, 2001

Sir Fredrick
"You can't get 187.5MBps on todays 32bit PCI BUS."

How does PCI come in to it at all? We're not talking host adaptors we're talking motherboard integrated here. (Although I'm sure both will be available).

"How long do you think it will be before we seen generation 2 or 3 serial ATA?"

I'll answer your question witha question, how long was the period between ATA66 and ATA100? (a year maybe 2?)

"We don't know what the real performance of serialATA will be, since it is not available yet. All we can do is speculate, which is pretty useless. U160 SCSI is available *now*. Who cares if generation 2 Serial ATA is just as good as today's U160SCSI....."

Ummm hmmmm ya lets see Gen 2 SerialATA will be 375MB/s and you want to compare that with 160MB/s SCSI, that's like pineapples and grapes. Why not Gen 1 SerialATA (187.5MB/s) to 160MB SCSI, that's more like oranges and oranges.

No one said SerialATA will be as good as SCSI we've only said that it will bring ATA/IDE much much closer to SCSI. Giving ATA much of the speed and benefits of SCSI at none of the cost.

Thorin

Hanpan · Feb 2, 2001

Ummm hmmmm ya lets see Gen 2 SerialATA will be 375MB/s and you want to compare that with 160MB/s SCSI, that's like pineapples and grapes. Why not Gen 1 SerialATA (187.5MB/s) to 160MB SCSI, that's more like oranges and oranges.

Actually since ibm recently announced a u320 and adaptec in working on a u320 contoller i believe 320mb/s of u320 to 187.5 mb/s of serial ata would be an apples to apples comparison.

Sir Fredrick · Feb 2, 2001

>>>> How does PCI come in to it at all? We're not talking host adaptors we're talking motherboard integrated here. (Although I'm sure both will be available). <<<<<

Integrated or not, it all runs over the PCI BUS. I have an onboard SCSI adapter, runs over the PCI bus. I have an onboard IDE controller, runs on the PCI BUS. If my motherboard had an onboard controller, guess what, that would also run over the PCI BUS.

>>>> "How long do you think it will be before we seen generation 2 or 3 serial ATA?"

I'll answer your question witha question, how long was the period between ATA66 and ATA100? (a year maybe 2?) <<<<

Exactly my point.

If gen 1 is in a year, then we're talking 2 to 3 years in the future.

>>>> Ummm hmmmm ya lets see Gen 2 SerialATA will be 375MB/s and you want to compare that with 160MB/s SCSI, that's like pineapples and grapes. Why not Gen 1 SerialATA (187.5MB/s) to 160MB SCSI, that's more like oranges and oranges. <<<<

By performance, I meant exactly performance. Not bandwidth. Bandwidth is not much of an issue, since most drives can't sustain those high numbers. If the drives have the same performance as present day IDE drives, giving them extra bandwidth does not solve the problem.

>>>> No one said SerialATA will be as good as SCSI we've only said that it will bring ATA/IDE much much closer to SCSI. Giving ATA much of the speed and benefits of SCSI at none of the cost.<<<<

Yes, SerialATA is an improvement, I agree. However it seems that it will still lag behind SCSI in overall performance, and I think that it is foolish to compare current day SCSI with technology that is not currently available.

thorin · Feb 3, 2001

"By performance, I meant exactly performance. Not bandwidth. Bandwidth is not much of an issue, since most drives can't sustain those high numbers. If the drives have the same performance as present day IDE drives, giving them extra bandwidth does not solve the problem."

Read the thread again we've already proved that Bandwidth will be an issue.

Thorin

Pariah · Feb 3, 2001

Bandwidth has never been an issue with IDE. There has never been a point where a drive's STR has exceeded the fastest ATA specification, or really even come that close percentage wise. Judging by the future announced specs we probably won't ever see it happen. Assuming serial ATA is out within the year to early 2002, I can guarantee you that unless there is some major breakthrough, there will not be an IDE HD that breaks 90MB/s before Serial ATA is released. At the current rate of increased STR's, it won't be until late 2002 to 2003 that we will see an IDE drive break 90, at that point Serial ATA2 will be close to release and HD's will fall far short again of their max bandwidth.

damien6 · Feb 3, 2001

I had a complete scsi system, scsi DVD, CD-RW and of course the HD too, even right down to the scsi floppy drive but I broke some pins on the connectors.

(I'll get it fix eventually I hope)

At present one system in all IDE but I'll might install a scsi card for a scanner though. Second system has a scsi card for DVD + CD-RW but has IDE HD and IDE LS-120. The third system isn't completed yet but I already got the mother w/onboard scsi (Supermicro 370DE6) which will have few X15s, S&F 12x CD-RW, scsi LS-120, scsi CD reader, scsi DVD, etc... you get the idea. No IDE what so ever and as matter of fact only thing in that case that'll have IDE cable is the SB Live Platinum.

Want to see some Pics?

The Case

The Board

Both

Replacement

Crappy 21"

Even crappier 15" that's going to run dual monitor w/ a free 19" due to shipping order

The step child (AMD K6-2 450mhz)

Other 21"

Almost worth the $584 price tag for the motherboard since they threw in all these freebees

Sir Fredrick · Feb 3, 2001

I'd love a SCSI floppy...but that's too expensive even for me

Sustained transfer speed is pretty much a non-issue for your average user. Far more important are low seek times. And as I said before, we're already to the point where the 32 bit PCI bus is maxed out, with U160SCSI. Anything faster should be on a different bus to see any benefit...and 64bit PCI is not used on anything but servers currently.

SiliconVandal · Feb 3, 2001

IDE with ATA/100 for drives, cheap and very fast. Now I must say Plextor's 12x SCSI setup is very nice..and also very expensive.

Modus · Feb 3, 2001

Sweet Sassy Molassy, what a thread!

I hate to jump in like this (only skimming that last hunred or so posts) but I just want to make a few points in favor of IDE:

1) Price/performance always matters.

Those that have the enormous funds necessary to build a nuclear SCSI workstation like Patrick's shouldn't even be debating the issue because there's nothing to debate about their buying strategy -- they simply went out and purchased the very best parts available. That is not an intelligent purchasing decision, that is simply a kid in a candy store holding a $20 bill.

Now, the people who the SCSI/IDE -- or any other technology -- debate really applies to are the people without the ability to purchase the very best available. This vast majority of people must consider price/performance ratios to make an informed decision. So let's stop the mindless arguments that "SCSI was worth it for me" or "SCSI is great when you can afford it". That's totally irrelevant. All that matters is how much better SCSI is than IDE, and how much you extra we pay for it: two numbers that are not so hard to calculate.

2) The costly addition of a SCSI controller completely obliterates any possible price/performance advantage of a SCSI setup.

It is difficult enough to say that an average, modern 15G SCSI drive will show a sufficiently large real world performance boost over a comparable 15G 7200 rpm ATA/100 drive to justify its large price premium. That is highly debatable, and depends on the individual performance of the drives in question. However, as soon as one adds the cost of the necessary SCSI controller, the entire price/performance equation is blown out of the water. There is no way SCSI can compete when it is hobbled by the cripling cost of the controller card.

3) CPU utlization on IDE devices using Busmaster DMA drivers remains less than 2% -- right in line with SCSI.

There is a myth, still circulated, that SCSI devices continue to consume significantly less CPU resources than their modern IDE counterparts. This is demonstrably flase. A quick trip to StorageReview will show that even the fastest IDE drives consume less than 2% of system resources under full load. This is due to busmastering DMA technology which, in effect, does for IDE data transfers what AGP did for transfers from video memory to system memory: it cuts the CPU out of the loop.

This busmastering DMA capability -- which all IDE machines in the past three years have featured -- combined with large CDRW buffers and BurnProof technology make a SCSI CDRW setup completely unnecessary for all but the most hardened software pirates.

4) The added reliability of SCSI technology rarely comes into play.

Although IDE drives are more likely to fail than their SCSI counterparts, the failure rate is still low enough to put reasonable trust in the technology. And manufacturers are sticking to their no-quibble three year warranties. (Maxtor, in particular, gives great service for its IDE line.) The important point to remember here is that SCSI's higher MTBF specs will rarely come into play because modern drives become obsolete long before they are at high risk to fail. In other words, what does it matter if a SCSI drive is rated to last 20 years and the IDE only 10, when both will be antiques after 5?

5) "Expandability" and "Scalability" are words used by those with delusions of running a server.

We are not building enterprise web servers here. We're trying to find the best price/performance ratio for a home or business PC. The standard four devices allowed by an IDE system are adequate for 90% of computer users. A dirt cheap PCI ATA/100 controller card will bring that up to eight, satisfying all but the most demanding of the rest. Touting SCSI technology for its ability to daisy-chain thirty devices at a moment's notice is something like bragging about driving a tractor-trailer to work on the off chance you'll need to cart home 500 pounds of pre-wrapped sausages.

Modus

NFS4 · Feb 3, 2001

You can always count on Modus to add greatly to the discussion

I agree with you 110%

Radboy · Feb 3, 2001

Ah, Modus .. the partitioning expert who doesn't partition .. the imaging expert who doesn't image .. is now a SCSI expert who ..

Modus · Feb 3, 2001

Radboy,

<< Ah, Modus .. the partitioning expert who doesn't partition .. the imaging expert who doesn't image .. is now a SCSI expert who .. >>

Actually, I have partitioned. And imaged. And personally assembled and tested modern 1 GHz SCSI machines with Quantum Atlas 10KII drives. But that's irrelevant.

Do I need to personally use Windows 2000 to accept that it's more stable than Windows 98? Do I have to personally overclock a Celeron 300A at 450 MHz to prove to myself its potential? Must I waste hundreds of dollars on an Intel P4 setup to understand its incredibly poor price/performance ratio? We live in an age where all the information we could possibly desire is right at our fingertips. The only requirement is some skill and common sense in sifting through it.

As for the SCSI vs. IDE debate, your stale insult demonstrates an utter lack of any amunition against my arguments. But just to completely bury the issue:

http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/01q1/010129/u160scsi-06.html

This little gem of a review pitted a Quantum Atlas 10K II against the latest Fujitus 10K rpm SCSI drive and the lightweight IDE fan favorite, the IBM 75GXP. The results will give SCSI nuts a hernia

The enterprise-class Quantum and Fujitsu drives feature STR rates only 11% better than the "consumer" IBM drive. As for low level seek times, the SCSI drives measure about 32% faster than the IDE unit. And here's the real kicker: Under Winbench 99 (which both Western Digital and Seagate endorse as the best current tool for measuring overall drive performance) the IDE and SCSI drives are almost dead even. This is a disaster for SCSI advocates. But let's rub a little salt in the wound and break it down dollar for dollar:

Quantum Atlas 10K II SCSI Ultra/160 18G - $295
Tekram DC390U2B (not even 160M/s) - $96
Total - $389

IBM 75GXP ATA/100 15G - $104

What does the extra $285 buy you? Exactly nothing under the industy's most favored benchmark. And only 11% faster STR's and 32% faster seeks. You would pay 274% more money for, at most, 32% more speed. This is a price/performance fiasco of Intelian proportions.

Modus

Pariah · Feb 3, 2001

"1) Price/performance always matters....."

Sounds like sour grapes from someone who either can't afford it, or isn't willing to spend that type of money on their computer. It's a personal decision whether you want to pay for the best or not. If I or someone else has the money to buy the best, why should we not? Just so you won't think I'm acting like a kid in a candy store? If you have the money to spend on it, it isn't a waste of money.

"15G SCSI"

Not that this has any real relevance, but has there ever been a 15GB SCSI drive? Can we use examples of things that really exist?

"There is no way SCSI can compete when it is hobbled by the cripling cost of the controller card"

Crippling? Can me stop with the melodramatics please? If $125 for an U2W SCSI controller is crippling to your budget, return you computer and buy some food and clothes instead.

"3) CPU utlization on IDE devices using Busmaster DMA drivers remains less than 2% -- right in line with SCSI."

This is the first thing you have said that is true. Though the 2% estimation is probably low for both IDE and SCSI HD's running full bore.

"4) The added reliability of SCSI technology rarely comes into play."

I've had 5 IDE hard drives, an IDE CRW drive, and an IDE CDROM drive die on me, all long before the warranty expired. Never had a SCSI device die on me. Don't try to convince me or anyone else that IDE is as reliable as SCSI. It isn't. Having a quick warranty turnaround is meaningless if the item in question doesn't fail in the first place. There's a reason SCSI HD's carry a 5 year warranty and IDE carry a 3 year, and it isn't because IDE drives are manufactured as well.

"Touting SCSI technology for its ability to daisy-chain thirty devices at a moment's notice"

As with everything, you can take it to extremes and make something look stupid. No home user needs 30 devices on a card, but there is a happy medium. There are side benefits to being able to install that many drives on a single cable. What's easier to install? One cable to all your devices or trying to wind 4 IDE cables through your case? I know with my case with a standard 18" IDE cable can't reach the top hard drive bay in my case. The longer length of the SCSI cable allows for easier installation of drives in my system.

Radboy · Feb 3, 2001

You don't *need* to do all those things .. but if u wanna assume the position of expert, and speak w/ authority on the subject (like it seems u would) it helps if u have some first-hand experience .. which is superior to knowledge based soley on intellect. You don't need to actually have used w2k to know it's more stable, but what kind of w2k expert has never used the OS?

From your posts in the partitioning thread, it was plainly obvious that you've never done it. Nothing wrong with never having created or restored an image .. unless you want to assume the position of imaging expert.

have not read the tom's link .. will later.

Storagereview has this to say about winbench:

"WB99 was among the best overall measures of HD performance. Unfortunately, it's aged ungracefully."

Why did you selet an 18GB SCSI drive? You don't need more than 9GB to both W2K, WinME, all your apps, swap/page file, and a distro (or two) of Linux. Or are you planning to store your MP3s on enterprise-class SCSI drive?

You should've listed a small SCSI as boot drive, and a big-@ss IDE drive for (relatively) cheap mass storage .. things like downloads, drivers, images, jpegs, MP3s, AVIs, etc. Only the OS, apps & swap/page file should go on the SCSI.

The 9GB Quantum 10K II can be bought for $180 with this rebate .. free shipping with this deal. And this drive (4.7ms seek & 7.7ms access) will long outlast any IDE drive .. no matter how little you pay for it. It supports multitasking, which IDE does not, and it kils the 12+ms access time specs of even the fastest IDE drive.

The Tekram U2B is a poor choice of adapter (not surprised you didn't know this, tho) .. as it doesn't let you run non-LVD devices without degrading performance of devices on ther LVD channel. For this reason, the Tekram U2W is a much better choice .. something a SCSI expert like yourself should know.

What does SCSI buy you? Multitasking (IDE is a single-tasking interface), blazingly fast access times, and level of system responsiveness that you'd know about if you ever really used a contemporary SCSI system.

Modus · Feb 3, 2001

Pariah,

<< Sounds like sour grapes from someone who either can't afford it, or isn't willing to spend that type of money on their computer. >>

And what about all those who (rightly) deride the expensive P4? Is that sour grapes too? Look, you can call us cheapskates and we can call you rich snobs. But that won't change the fact that a sensible person wants a valid return on his purchases. Right now, neither SCSI or the P4 can offer that.

<< If $125 for an U2W SCSI controller is crippling to your budget, return you computer and buy some food and clothes instead. >>

Why thank you for such an egalitarian comment, Mr. Jonathan Swift, but an intelligent reader would have understood the obvious meaning: that the cost of the controller card would be crippling to its price/performance ratio, not necessarily crippling to one's budget.

<< This is the first thing you have said that is true. >>

Liar

<< I've had 5 IDE hard drives, an IDE CRW drive, and an IDE CDROM drive die on me, all long before the warranty expired. Never had a SCSI device die on me >>

Well there we have it, folks! Pariah has spoken. And by his statistics, IDE drives fail constantly while SCSI drives don't at all.

<< Don't try to convince me or anyone else that IDE is as reliable as SCSI. It isn't. >>

Of course not. But it's reliable enough that the vast majority of people won't see a difference between one or the other. And until you present some objective statistics that can quantify things properly, you can't make assertions based on your own limitted personal experience.

<< What's easier to install? One cable to all your devices or trying to wind 4 IDE cables through your case? >>

I think the very fact that you actually care about the effort required to plug in a cable says a lot. . .

RadBoy,

<< You don't *need* to do all those things .. but if u wanna assume the position of expert >>

Which I never did. I simply pointed to the accepted facts and used simple logic to form a sensible conclusion. I don't need to be a mathematician to prove that 2 x 2 = 4, and I don't need use SCSI in my personal system to prove to myself day in and day how much a waste of money it is.

<< From your posts in the partitioning thread, it was plainly obvious that you've never done it. >>

Please don't lie. You lied about this before, and now you compound the idiocy by repeating it. On top of it all, you fail to see the absurdity in claiming a person who has built hundreds of systems has never partitioned a hard drive.

<< Storagereview has this to say about winbench: WB99 was among the best overall measures of HD performance. Unfortunately, it's aged ungracefully. >>

That could mean anything. There's no elaboration. Why would it not age gracefully? Because it shows IDE drives matching SCSI drives of three times the cost? LOL, what a circular argument your proposing!

BTW, StorageReview also said this about ZDNet Winbench99 (paraphrase): 'Western digital and Seagate still consider WinBench99 to be the best measure of overall drive performance. . . which is ironic in WD's case since this drive didn't score well in that test.'

<< Why did you selet an 18GB SCSI drive? >>

Because 9G is too small for today's users who demand storage for reams of digital media files, and because there is no modern IDE drive at only 9G.

<< The 9GB Quantum 10K II can be bought for $180 with this rebate >>

You know, you're shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. If you seriously advocate a small main SCSI drive and a large IDE storage drive, you only drive up the cost further, making SCSI look even more ridiculous.

<< The Tekram U2B is a poor choice of adapter (not surprised you didn't know this, tho) .. as it doesn't let you run non-LVD devices without degrading performance of devices on ther LVD channel. For this reason, the Tekram U2W is a much better choice >>

I chose the U2B because a SCSI advocate earlier in this thread claimed it was an economicall choice. I'm well aware of its drawbacks. Again, if you want to tack on an extra $25 for a better controller, just chalk up another victory for IDE.

TO REITERATE:

Benchmarks of modern IDE and SCSI drives from StorageReview and TomsHardware show IDE lagging by absolutely nothing in application performance, by 11% in low level STR performance, and by only 32% in seek times, the supposed strength of the SCSI interface. Price data shows us that a SCSI setup costs nearly 300% more than a comparable IDE setup. Thus, SCSI's performance advantage is nowhere near its price premium.

Translation: SCSI is a poor value.

Modus

Sir Fredrick · Feb 3, 2001

If you worship the gods of price/performance so much, go back to the K62, get a motherboard with everything integrated, and a nice cheap winmodem.

Some of us enjoy great performance even if it means paying a small price premium.

And you don't have to be rich to afford SCSI. I myself am a poor college student, and I still manage to find the money for some great components.

borealiss · Feb 3, 2001

Modus

<< And what about all those who (rightly) deride the expensive P4? Is that sour grapes too? Look, you can call us cheapskates and we can call you rich snobs. But that won't change the fact that a sensible person wants a valid return on his purchases. Right now, neither SCSI or the P4 can offer that. >>

this is an invalid comparison. the p4 is disguised as a high performance cpu when in fact that on most apps today it doesn't compare to the tbird, AND it's more expensive. scsi is faster then eide is, and is more expensive, but it is still faster. if eide were faster than scsi at the price it is right now, then it would be fair to compare the tbird/p4 issue with the scsi/eide one. with scsi you are getting more performance, at a higher cost. with the p4, you generally get slower performance than amd's offering, AT a higher cost.

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

Elite Member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Guest

Member

Guest

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Guest

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Golden Member

Guest

Banned

Platinum Member

No Lifer

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Elite Member

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Guest

Senior member