why don't IDE hard drives come in 10,000 RPM?
also, why are 10,000RPM SCSI drives so small? the biggest i've seen is about 20GB
also, why are 10,000RPM SCSI drives so small? the biggest i've seen is about 20GB
why don't hard IDE hard drives come in 10000RPM?
- Thread starter Carboxyl
- Start date
10K SCSI Drives are available in 73G capacity (3.5" Slim). IDE drives are not offered in 10K or greater to 'prop up' the price of SCSI drives. Faster spin speeds also result in less capacity with the same base technology (heads, read channel etc), requires more power and makes more heat.
SCSI is really only useful for servers, the western digital 8 MB buffer model is as fast as scsi models when it comes to transfer rates but seek and access times are higher.
When Serial ATA becomes the norm I don't think anybody will want scsi that much anymore.
When Serial ATA becomes the norm I don't think anybody will want scsi that much anymore.
that statement is overused and untrue
also keep in mind it wont 'bog down' your system as much when transferring either. and access time attributes alot to the 'responsiveness' of a system.
how do you figure? serial ATA just makes IDE easier to use/setup, smaller cables, and hotswap. as far as performance, it doesnt do much of anything right now.
BD231
Lifer
- Feb 26, 2001
- 10,568
- 138
- 106
SCSI is faster than IDE purely because of RPM difference, don?t let anyone trick you into thinking its not any faster though. I've used IDE ever since I started building computers, and I only recently went over to SCSI as my main HD. The seek times are much better, more consistent for sure, and worth it for OS and gaming use. I would never use SCSI for storage because I don?t have that kind of cash right now. IDE drives don?t come any faster because currently there is no need for them in the eyes of HD manufactures. They want money, and they are currently making loads of it. They are keeping SCSI as the high-end alternative, and IDE as the value. It really dose suck IMHO, I know they are more than capable of making faster IDE drives. Cost and heat dissipation could be factors as well.
True HD manufacturers want money, and they are making money, but I'm not sure if they're making loads of it. Hard Drives are one of the most complex mechanical systems made by man. There have been significant innovations in hard drive technology in recent years and the capacity and speed keeps increasing (especially compared to other industries).
The HD market is highly competitive as well, companies are working hard to increase speed, capacity and stability. It might be easy (I'm really not sure about this) to apply the SCSI speed technology to IDE Hard drives. However, I'm sure that it can't be profitable, or else HD manufacturers would be doing exactly that.
Show me a single IDE drive that can sustain a 60+meg/s transfer rate in excess of the cache amount. IE if you are dealing with a WD 8meg cache, copy a 16meg block of data and see if it can sustain 60+meg/s. It won't, I guarantee it and storage review has the benchmarks to prove it. SCSI still has a solid market. In day to day web browsing the WD 8meg cache drive is probably a good drive, for other tasks where there is intense disk access (such as online gaming) SCSI will eat it for lunch.
Is 15k SCSI worth almost double the price over 10k SCSI for an avid online and offline gamer? I find 2/3 sec freezes in DAoC, Morrowind etc very annoying but i am not sure how much of it is HDD and how much of it is my slow CPU (or even just poor implementation of game code)
Akaz
PS. My rig specs are in my sig.
Akaz
PS. My rig specs are in my sig.
I can't tell you if anything is "worth it" to you. That is a personal determination. SCSI is expensive and when discussing the X15's you get into some incredibly high prices. You have to decide if it's worth it to you. The pauses you describe in morrowind are the stuff that drives me NUTS. I'm almost always the first one into a map in CS (I would be quicker but there is a bit of server lag usually). I no longer really wait for any harddrive related stuff, moving files around opening explorer (and I have indexing on), etc. But as I said, you have to weigh the costs yourself. IMO scsi isn't worth it if you don't get the X15's or Atlas III's. The performance advantage between IDE and SCSI is much closer than it used to be but an X15 buries an IDE drive.
It's a conspiracy! "They" want us to buy SCSI for the higher sustained transfer rates. Want more speed? Upgrade to the S-Class!
<<IDE drives are not offered in 10K or greater to 'prop up' the price of SCSI drives>>
*COMPLETELY WRONG* It has Everything to do with the data density... and that's IT. SCSI?s are at 18GB per platter, where IDE is at 40GB per platter as of right now.
SCSI also has 10x LESS likely to corrupt your data because of its architecture, which is a main factor in using them in workstations and servers.
With SCSI, it is Performance that is the biggest overall selling point. That?s why they (HD manufacturers) are more focused on developing performance issues with SCSI drives. With IDE, it?s GB?s that are the ?main? selling point, that?s why they focus on capacity issues.
Another point I?d like to comment on:
<<I would never use SCSI for storage because I don?t have that kind of cash right now>>
As I said, SCSI is 10x LESS likely to corrupt your data. I?m a programmer, and my data is Very valuable stuff, ?to me? I ONLY use SCSI for storage for that reason only. It all boils down to ?how valuable is your data to you??
Is SCSI better? Yes, in all aspects?
Is IDE more economical? Yes
It all comes down to How much money you want to spend on your computing needs. And that?s it.
You spend more money for a faster CPU or Video card because you want more ?performance?? same diff with SCSI.
.02
*COMPLETELY WRONG* It has Everything to do with the data density... and that's IT. SCSI?s are at 18GB per platter, where IDE is at 40GB per platter as of right now.
SCSI also has 10x LESS likely to corrupt your data because of its architecture, which is a main factor in using them in workstations and servers.
With SCSI, it is Performance that is the biggest overall selling point. That?s why they (HD manufacturers) are more focused on developing performance issues with SCSI drives. With IDE, it?s GB?s that are the ?main? selling point, that?s why they focus on capacity issues.
Another point I?d like to comment on:
<<I would never use SCSI for storage because I don?t have that kind of cash right now>>
As I said, SCSI is 10x LESS likely to corrupt your data. I?m a programmer, and my data is Very valuable stuff, ?to me? I ONLY use SCSI for storage for that reason only. It all boils down to ?how valuable is your data to you??
Is SCSI better? Yes, in all aspects?
Is IDE more economical? Yes
It all comes down to How much money you want to spend on your computing needs. And that?s it.
You spend more money for a faster CPU or Video card because you want more ?performance?? same diff with SCSI.
.02
"*COMPLETELY WRONG* It has Everything to do with the data density... and that's IT. SCSI?s are at 18GB per platter, where IDE is at 40GB per platter as of right now."
It has nothing to do with data density. There is nothing stopping Seagate from slapping an IDE interface onto a X15-36LP. The market is not there for that kind of product in IDE because IDE is a purely cost driven market. SCSI is the development platform for HD's. R&D costs are passed on to SCSI users. Once it is economically viable to truly mass produce a feature it drops down to IDE. Comparing platter densities of IDE to SCSI is an apples to oranges comparision as they use different sized platters.
It has nothing to do with data density. There is nothing stopping Seagate from slapping an IDE interface onto a X15-36LP. The market is not there for that kind of product in IDE because IDE is a purely cost driven market. SCSI is the development platform for HD's. R&D costs are passed on to SCSI users. Once it is economically viable to truly mass produce a feature it drops down to IDE. Comparing platter densities of IDE to SCSI is an apples to oranges comparision as they use different sized platters.
i think the idea that SCSI is "only faster" thanks to higher RPMs is a bit off the mark. For me, the reason I'm considering an upgrade to SCSI is the reduced overhead of disk transfers. IDE uses up a lot more CPU cycles transfering data than SCSI, and I think that's one of the main benefits.
Kramer
Kramer
I may be off, but couldn't you have like 5 SCSI drives all doing stuff on the same cable and not experience slowdown? Also, aren't the heads on a SCSI drive not linked together, so it can write to different heads in different places, unlike IDE?
Yaboo..yeah...the data will stay on the actual channel...sort of like comparing a network hub and switch..
A hub floods the network with requests for the recipiant while the switch has that allready in its iptables and goes exactly where it needs to go...vend result is high efficientcy.
And to shut all you anti-scs peeps...hehe
as you use your os you are accessing different parts of the disk, so access times help,,,,BUT....as you continue to acces s your system, say in any situation that requires alot of access...(I have about 5 progs running my pc at about 70% and the rest is the divx movie I am playing..
Right now, my disk intensive tasks all finish and continue with regularity with my scsi OS drive. If Iwere using an IDE drive, which I am for storage, not only would the tasks complete slower, the entire systemwould get bogged down as task after task would pile up waiting to be finished...think of it this way....
I have this imaginary internet connection
1 is IDE
2 is SCSI..
IDE will transfer at a max. of about 40MBytes /s but when I visit a webpage all transfers will cease indefinitely until that page loads...
Even worse, If I am downloading at something other than the max speed, no other tasks(or downloads) can take place
SCSI is so fast that task semmlessly seem to work in tandem so I can have as many downloads as I want, and they will all run seemlessly together
A hub floods the network with requests for the recipiant while the switch has that allready in its iptables and goes exactly where it needs to go...vend result is high efficientcy.
And to shut all you anti-scs peeps...hehe
as you use your os you are accessing different parts of the disk, so access times help,,,,BUT....as you continue to acces s your system, say in any situation that requires alot of access...(I have about 5 progs running my pc at about 70% and the rest is the divx movie I am playing..
Right now, my disk intensive tasks all finish and continue with regularity with my scsi OS drive. If Iwere using an IDE drive, which I am for storage, not only would the tasks complete slower, the entire systemwould get bogged down as task after task would pile up waiting to be finished...think of it this way....
I have this imaginary internet connection
1 is IDE
2 is SCSI..
IDE will transfer at a max. of about 40MBytes /s but when I visit a webpage all transfers will cease indefinitely until that page loads...
Even worse, If I am downloading at something other than the max speed, no other tasks(or downloads) can take place
SCSI is so fast that task semmlessly seem to work in tandem so I can have as many downloads as I want, and they will all run seemlessly together
Morrowind pauses on me for about a sec also, and it's running off a x15-36lp, so I don't think that's the problem. Where can I get the no-cd hack?
no0b, that depends on what you plan to do with it. Is it for a server or for a workstation? How many drives do you plan on using?
For a workstation, an Adaptec 19160 SCSI card would be a good choice, IMO. It supports the high-speed Ultra160 devices as well as the 50-pin Ultra SCSI and Fast SCSI devices.
You can buy the Adaptec 19160 at Hyper Microsystems for $185. That includes the internal SCSI cables.
For a workstation, an Adaptec 19160 SCSI card would be a good choice, IMO. It supports the high-speed Ultra160 devices as well as the 50-pin Ultra SCSI and Fast SCSI devices.
You can buy the Adaptec 19160 at Hyper Microsystems for $185. That includes the internal SCSI cables.
Jesus... the misinformation..
SCSI is used for servers because of near zero CPU overhead (A SCSI controller is a true "controller", not merely an interface like IDE), the ability to chain many devices together using minimal IRQ/IO resources. SCSI drives cost more and spin faster because they have more, smaller platters. New, high-speed 15k SCSI drive, Standard IDE platter size. It would be quite a chore to spin a few full-size platters @ 15k RPM. The CHeetah 15k 73GB drive has 4 small platter, and 8 heads, while a Maxtor 80 GB 7200 has 2 large platters and 4 heads. Smaller platters = lower access times. One of the reasons SCSI is more expensive is the quality of compnents used, more powerful drive motors, read ars, anti-shock technology, etc..
Why is SCSI faster/more expensive?
Higher platter/head count
Lower Areal densities
Larger, more efficient cache
Very low CPU utilization (THe SCSI controller does the work, not the host CPU)
Longer warranty
Higher MTBF (mean time between failure)
Blazing transfer rates
Very low access times.
As said above, both interfaces are designed for each intended audience.
SCSI is used for servers because of near zero CPU overhead (A SCSI controller is a true "controller", not merely an interface like IDE), the ability to chain many devices together using minimal IRQ/IO resources. SCSI drives cost more and spin faster because they have more, smaller platters. New, high-speed 15k SCSI drive, Standard IDE platter size. It would be quite a chore to spin a few full-size platters @ 15k RPM. The CHeetah 15k 73GB drive has 4 small platter, and 8 heads, while a Maxtor 80 GB 7200 has 2 large platters and 4 heads. Smaller platters = lower access times. One of the reasons SCSI is more expensive is the quality of compnents used, more powerful drive motors, read ars, anti-shock technology, etc..
Why is SCSI faster/more expensive?
Higher platter/head count
Lower Areal densities
Larger, more efficient cache
Very low CPU utilization (THe SCSI controller does the work, not the host CPU)
Longer warranty
Higher MTBF (mean time between failure)
Blazing transfer rates
Very low access times.
As said above, both interfaces are designed for each intended audience.
Well of course someone asked a question about IDE hard drives and it turned into a scsi discussion again.
IDE HD's don't come in 10K mode because:
A) 99.99999% of people don't have active cooling on their drives. This would be required at 10k, is highly advisable with some 7.2k drives. Especially IBM deathstars.
B) 99.99999% of people don't give a damn about HD access times, but are bothered by continuing whine sounds. My 7200's are already noisy enough, thank you (Both WD).
C) 99.99999% of people, which inlcudes those who don't care about access times, don't care about HD performance in general. Notice how WinXP sets drives to PIO mode, yet most people never notice or care? Even around here when a thread about it comes up there are always people who go and look and just then notice they're in PIO mode instead of DMA and this is an enthusiast site.
D) Forgot where I was going with this listing thing.
To be honest I'm surprised 7200rpm ever caught on over 5400. And, continuing the honesty thing, I'd rather have 5400 for everything but my main drive because of the heat and noise issues. If there are any ATA 10K drives on the drawing board I hope they have a feature that allows you to slow them down to 5400 or at least 7200. I only need about 100rpm speed for my storage drives. If the market demanded 10K drives and that's all there was I personally would have to reconsider having more than 1HD in my machine at a time.
--Mc
IDE HD's don't come in 10K mode because:
A) 99.99999% of people don't have active cooling on their drives. This would be required at 10k, is highly advisable with some 7.2k drives. Especially IBM deathstars.
B) 99.99999% of people don't give a damn about HD access times, but are bothered by continuing whine sounds. My 7200's are already noisy enough, thank you (Both WD).
C) 99.99999% of people, which inlcudes those who don't care about access times, don't care about HD performance in general. Notice how WinXP sets drives to PIO mode, yet most people never notice or care? Even around here when a thread about it comes up there are always people who go and look and just then notice they're in PIO mode instead of DMA and this is an enthusiast site.
D) Forgot where I was going with this listing thing.
To be honest I'm surprised 7200rpm ever caught on over 5400. And, continuing the honesty thing, I'd rather have 5400 for everything but my main drive because of the heat and noise issues. If there are any ATA 10K drives on the drawing board I hope they have a feature that allows you to slow them down to 5400 or at least 7200. I only need about 100rpm speed for my storage drives. If the market demanded 10K drives and that's all there was I personally would have to reconsider having more than 1HD in my machine at a time.
--Mc
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter