As long as SCSI drives cost $8-11 per GB and IDE drives cost under $1.50/GB, SCSI drives will remain hot and noisy. If SCSI drives were suddenly under $1.50/GB I bet a large percentage of enthusiasts will suddenly find them to be not so loud and hot any more.
THey're hot and noisy because they are working twice as hard. I fail to see the merit in your argument, SCSI will never be mainstream due to the cost and lower capacity.
Right on SuperSix!
Case in point, the fastest access times on the IDE drives at storagereview.com. Fastest is tied at 12.3ms (IBM 60GXP and Maxtor D740X). The so-loved WD 120gb drive comes in at 13.4-13.5ms.
I believe that the fastest access time on an IDE drive came from the SCSI-at-heart Quantum Fireball Plus LM, 11.5ms which is older than the drives listed above.
An old IBM Ultrastar 18ES 9gb drive takes a beating in STR since it's many generations old and lacking in density
but it's access time in HDTach is 11.3ms.
Sure took IDE a hell of a long time to catch up in that department.
bdog231 wrote:
I wonder...if 10k rpm IDE drives come out, how long will it take for them to catch up to the speed of older 10k rpm SCSI drives...
Case in point, the fastest access times on the IDE drives at storagereview.com. Fastest is tied at 12.3ms (IBM 60GXP and Maxtor D740X). The so-loved WD 120gb drive comes in at 13.4-13.5ms.
I believe that the fastest access time on an IDE drive came from the SCSI-at-heart Quantum Fireball Plus LM, 11.5ms which is older than the drives listed above.
An old IBM Ultrastar 18ES 9gb drive takes a beating in STR since it's many generations old and lacking in density
but it's access time in HDTach is 11.3ms.Sure took IDE a hell of a long time to catch up in that department.
bdog231 wrote:
Those are all 7200rpm drives, bdog231. So I don't think SCSI is faster than IDE purely because of RPM difference
I wonder...if 10k rpm IDE drives come out, how long will it take for them to catch up to the speed of older 10k rpm SCSI drives...
"THey're hot and noisy because they are working twice as hard. I fail to see the merit in your argument, SCSI will never be mainstream due to the cost and lower capacity."
My point is that they aren't that hot and noisy. The obstacle to SCSI is cost, including the SCSI card, if SCSI was in the IDE cost bracket (which it never will be), users would find a way to magically ignore the heat and noise or find a way to deal with it. The whole heat issue is overrated, you can run these drives without active cooling so long as the air in your case is not completely stagnant. Idle noise is in the IDE range, only the seeks are noticably louder. Current gen SCSI is far cooler and quieter than early gen IDE 7200RPM drives, yet users flocked to those in droves.
"I wonder...if 10k rpm IDE drives come out, how long will it take for them to catch up to the speed of older 10k rpm SCSI drives..."
They should be much faster by the time they are released. An X15-36LP won't be any slower on IDE than it is on SCSI. The only reason early 10k IDE drives would be slower is because manufacturers artificially slowed them down, which is basically what we saw when 7200RPM drives migrated from lowend SCSI to highend IDE.
My point is that they aren't that hot and noisy. The obstacle to SCSI is cost, including the SCSI card, if SCSI was in the IDE cost bracket (which it never will be), users would find a way to magically ignore the heat and noise or find a way to deal with it. The whole heat issue is overrated, you can run these drives without active cooling so long as the air in your case is not completely stagnant. Idle noise is in the IDE range, only the seeks are noticably louder. Current gen SCSI is far cooler and quieter than early gen IDE 7200RPM drives, yet users flocked to those in droves.
"I wonder...if 10k rpm IDE drives come out, how long will it take for them to catch up to the speed of older 10k rpm SCSI drives..."
They should be much faster by the time they are released. An X15-36LP won't be any slower on IDE than it is on SCSI. The only reason early 10k IDE drives would be slower is because manufacturers artificially slowed them down, which is basically what we saw when 7200RPM drives migrated from lowend SCSI to highend IDE.
Pariah wrote:
Yes, if they were precisely identical, save for the interface, it would makes sense that everything would be the same speed. But I don't think it'd be released precisely identical with an IDE connector.
It's not plausible that manufacturers would artificially slow down a drive though. If that were the case, you should be able to tell me what two models, one IDE and one SCSI, are identical except for their interface.
How about difference explained as oh...say, the difference in design?
Or in the farthest case I can imagine, maybe the first gen IDE would be based on the oldest gen SCSI with the same rotational speed? (There are 7200rpm SCSI drives from about 4 years ago that are closer to the access times of today's 7200rpm IDE drives).
Either of those seems more likely than duplicates of the SCSI drives with an IDE connector "artificially slowed down".
Yes, if they were precisely identical, save for the interface, it would makes sense that everything would be the same speed. But I don't think it'd be released precisely identical with an IDE connector.
It's not plausible that manufacturers would artificially slow down a drive though. If that were the case, you should be able to tell me what two models, one IDE and one SCSI, are identical except for their interface.
How about difference explained as oh...say, the difference in design?
Or in the farthest case I can imagine, maybe the first gen IDE would be based on the oldest gen SCSI with the same rotational speed? (There are 7200rpm SCSI drives from about 4 years ago that are closer to the access times of today's 7200rpm IDE drives).
Either of those seems more likely than duplicates of the SCSI drives with an IDE connector "artificially slowed down".
I'll rephrase that. Artificially slowed down from a design standpoint. Drive makers could just slap an IDE board on a SCSI drive which wouldn't cost much in R&D and create a very high performing IDE drive. Instead they will redesign the drives with slower seek times but unhindered STR's, because low seek times are expensive. Increased STR is a by-product of increased areal density which in turn leads to lower platter counts which in turn results in lower production costs. In contrast, lower seek times require faster more precise servos, plus better read heads which cost money not only to develop but to produce. There is no cost reduction benefit for lower seek times.
That's better, I was starting to wonder what you were talking about
It sure does make sense to go to a cheaper design at the cost of higher seeks/access than to make almost the exact same drive mechanically than add more further cost in designs just to artificially slow it down.While we are on the subject, can anyone recommend a good SCSI 15k/10k RPM hard drive that is pretty quiet? I just sold my IBM 10K 18GB SCSI hard drive cause it was creating to much noise in my otherwise quiet system. I want to get another SCSI hard drive but I don't want it to be to loud. Can anyone recommend a good 10K/15K SCSI hard drive that is quiet? Thanks.
AmdInside:
"While we are on the subject, can anyone recommend a good SCSI 15k/10k RPM hard drive that is pretty quiet? I just sold my IBM 10K 18GB SCSI hard drive cause it was creating to much noise in my otherwise quiet system. I want to get another SCSI hard drive but I don't want it to be to loud. Can anyone recommend a good 10K/15K SCSI hard drive that is quiet? Thanks."
Well as far as 15k RPM drives go, only three brand choices available, IBM, Seagate, and Fujitsu. No personal experience, but Storagereview indicates that the Fujitsu is probably the noisiest, the IBM runs the hottest and fairly noisy, Seagate's 1st gen 15k rpm drive are fairly noisy, and coming in at the least noisy is Seagate's 2nd gen 15k rpm drive.
Which according to storagereview.com is around the noise level of a Maxtor/Quantum Atlas 10K III when idling.
I've owned 3 different 10k rpm drives, a Seagate Cheetah 18XL 9.2gb, an IBM Ultrastar 36LZX 18.2gb, and a Maxtor/Quantum Atlas 10k III 18.2gb.
The Seagate was the quietest of the bunch, the IBM and Maxtor/Quantum were probably tied, but I think the Quantum was louder (I've had up to 2 of the 3 in my system at any point, but never the IBM+Maxtor/Quantum).
That's seeking of course. At idle they were all comparable to each other in my opinion (SR.com thinks that 10K III idles closely to the noise level of 7200rpm drives)
Unfortunately, the Seagate Cheetah 18XL an older drive now.
"While we are on the subject, can anyone recommend a good SCSI 15k/10k RPM hard drive that is pretty quiet? I just sold my IBM 10K 18GB SCSI hard drive cause it was creating to much noise in my otherwise quiet system. I want to get another SCSI hard drive but I don't want it to be to loud. Can anyone recommend a good 10K/15K SCSI hard drive that is quiet? Thanks."
Well as far as 15k RPM drives go, only three brand choices available, IBM, Seagate, and Fujitsu. No personal experience, but Storagereview indicates that the Fujitsu is probably the noisiest, the IBM runs the hottest and fairly noisy, Seagate's 1st gen 15k rpm drive are fairly noisy, and coming in at the least noisy is Seagate's 2nd gen 15k rpm drive.
Which according to storagereview.com is around the noise level of a Maxtor/Quantum Atlas 10K III when idling.
I've owned 3 different 10k rpm drives, a Seagate Cheetah 18XL 9.2gb, an IBM Ultrastar 36LZX 18.2gb, and a Maxtor/Quantum Atlas 10k III 18.2gb.
The Seagate was the quietest of the bunch, the IBM and Maxtor/Quantum were probably tied, but I think the Quantum was louder (I've had up to 2 of the 3 in my system at any point, but never the IBM+Maxtor/Quantum).
That's seeking of course. At idle they were all comparable to each other in my opinion (SR.com thinks that 10K III idles closely to the noise level of 7200rpm drives)
Unfortunately, the Seagate Cheetah 18XL an older drive now.
actually the newest 10k drive from seagate is the 36ES, which SR measured @44.6 db, well into the scores of the quieter 7200rpm and louder 5400rpm drives
(you have to go look in the database for the scores)
GOSHARKS:
whoops thanks was about to edit my post.
The 36XL scores .1ms better than the 36ES though must have been influencing me subliminally.
The 36XL starts at 9.2gb, the 36ES starts at 18.4gb.
The noise level makes sense, since the ES got to use bigger platters, hence less platters, so this is the "quiet" 10k drive I guess
whoops thanks
was about to edit my post.The 36XL scores .1ms better than the 36ES though
must have been influencing me subliminally.The 36XL starts at 9.2gb, the 36ES starts at 18.4gb.
The noise level makes sense, since the ES got to use bigger platters, hence less platters, so this is the "quiet" 10k drive I guess
Just thought I would add that the Western Digital was hitting 49 MB in sustained transfer (storage review) while the fastest scsi is hitting 54.3MB, not that far ahead.
There are at least 5 SCSI drives that exceed 54.3MB/s, the X15-36LP topping them all at 60.5MB/s. This drive was released last August, and the best IDE can do 2 generations later is sub 50MB/s. The next gen X15 due in a couple of months is expected to break 80MB/s.
Edit: Also keep mind, that due to the smaller platters in SCSI drives, they decay far less than IDE drives do. The WD that hits 49MB/s, but drops all the way down to 29.2MB/s on the outside, while the SCSI drives drop to about 45MB/s, less than 5MB/s slower than the fastest part on the WD drive. The difference between 45 and 29 is pretty significant.
Edit: Also keep mind, that due to the smaller platters in SCSI drives, they decay far less than IDE drives do. The WD that hits 49MB/s, but drops all the way down to 29.2MB/s on the outside, while the SCSI drives drop to about 45MB/s, less than 5MB/s slower than the fastest part on the WD drive. The difference between 45 and 29 is pretty significant.
SCSI - Some Cows See Infinately.
Those are pretty rare cows though. And I hear they don't make good hamburgers.
:::just had to throw a little humor in this thread:::
Those are pretty rare cows though. And I hear they don't make good hamburgers.
:::just had to throw a little humor in this thread:::
I have to say that this particular thread has sparked an interest in me to purchase a SCSI instead of an IDE for my next hard drive. In the past, price has really put me off from purchasing SCSI hard drives. But if the price will
At present, I have a 40GB Maxtor 740. I'm deciding between the new 80GB WD and the 18.4GB Maxtor AtlasIII 10K. I saw from the charts that the initial and end transfer rates of the Western Digital hard drive not far from the Maxtor. In fact, the WD initial transfer rates started over 54MB/s, while the Maxtor over 49MB/s.
I'm a bit confused....... isn't the Maxtor an UltraSCSI 160? Shouldn't it transfer over a 100MB/s? Sorry if my interpretation sounds stupid. I'm new to SCSI. I'm trying to see how paying over $145 for the SCSI is better than the larger, cheaper WD.
BTW, I'm only getting a 2nd hard drive because I want to upgrade to WinXP, and have a faster running OS on my old P3-500MHz PC. Also, I surf the net alot, and I read that having a second HD for swapfile will increase overall performance. Is that true?
Thanks for replies!
At present, I have a 40GB Maxtor 740. I'm deciding between the new 80GB WD and the 18.4GB Maxtor AtlasIII 10K. I saw from the charts that the initial and end transfer rates of the Western Digital hard drive not far from the Maxtor. In fact, the WD initial transfer rates started over 54MB/s, while the Maxtor over 49MB/s.
I'm a bit confused....... isn't the Maxtor an UltraSCSI 160? Shouldn't it transfer over a 100MB/s? Sorry if my interpretation sounds stupid. I'm new to SCSI. I'm trying to see how paying over $145 for the SCSI is better than the larger, cheaper WD.
BTW, I'm only getting a 2nd hard drive because I want to upgrade to WinXP, and have a faster running OS on my old P3-500MHz PC. Also, I surf the net alot, and I read that having a second HD for swapfile will increase overall performance. Is that true?
Thanks for replies!
Gregster, before answering the rest of your questions, there are reports that WinXP has some odd bug in it that affects SCSI performance, so keep that in mind if you plan on upgrading and getting SCSI.
SCSI160 gives the theoretical bandwidth of the interface. It's like ATA133, the drive don't transfer 133MB/s, that's just what the interface is capable of.
Swap file optimization isn't nearly as important as it used to be for typical users. With 512MB RAM commonplace now, the swapfile isn't used a whole lot. Placing it on a second drive of equal speed may occasionally speed things up, but it isn't worth buying a second drive for that purpose. If the second drive is slower than the primary, it definitely isn't worth doing.
It isn't worth upgrading the SCSI if all you do is surf the net a lot. IDE makers are just about to release their new lines, so if you are looking to upgrade, may just want to wait for them as they look promising.
SCSI160 gives the theoretical bandwidth of the interface. It's like ATA133, the drive don't transfer 133MB/s, that's just what the interface is capable of.
Swap file optimization isn't nearly as important as it used to be for typical users. With 512MB RAM commonplace now, the swapfile isn't used a whole lot. Placing it on a second drive of equal speed may occasionally speed things up, but it isn't worth buying a second drive for that purpose. If the second drive is slower than the primary, it definitely isn't worth doing.
It isn't worth upgrading the SCSI if all you do is surf the net a lot. IDE makers are just about to release their new lines, so if you are looking to upgrade, may just want to wait for them as they look promising.
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10312414&loc=101
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10309760&hdwt=30401&loc=101
just bought both... they are quiet...
but run very hot
by converting the drives to dynamic disking, your performance will be fine, until the major service pack
win 2k pro is a great os, imho, for scsi
I dont know... I have WinXP and an x15-36LP and w/ HDTach I get 55+MB/s on the top end... dont remember the exact amount but Inknow it was higher than 55MB...
The problem was with writes, not reads, and does not affect everyone. Converting to dynamic disk reportedly will fix the problem, but there are a number of reasons why using dynamic disks, especially on your boot drive is a bad idea. If win2k is an option, that is definitely the way to go.
i think the only issue w/ the conversion is that is non reversable.
you must do a low level format w/ deletion of master boot files to go back.
if the system is 100% scsi, the dynamic disk conversion will enhance performance.
it did for me
apparently it is an issue...
this locked thread recieved over 30,000 views (the most IVE ever noticed):
http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=1758&highlight=horrible+scsi
you must do a low level format w/ deletion of master boot files to go back.
if the system is 100% scsi, the dynamic disk conversion will enhance performance.
it did for me
apparently it is an issue...
this locked thread recieved over 30,000 views (the most IVE ever noticed):
http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=1758&highlight=horrible+scsi
So, in other words..... I should avoid SCSI's until they resolve the problem huh? Sigh...... was looking forward to a marked improvement over IDE. Guess I'll just stick to the new WD800 and a Promise TX2 133 card. One good thing tho' it'll save me alot for future upgrades like serial-ATA. Think SATA drives then will close the gap between SCSI?
no
it is just an interface change, has nothing to do with the inner mechanics of a hard drive. allows for more bandwidth, but if the drive can't make use of it, it is more or less pointless. (dont get me wrong, sata is still good for its other points: cables, etc)
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