· Content
· News
· Articles
· Mailinglists
· Knowledgebase
· Trouble Tickets
· Files
· Glossary
· Links
· Compatibility Lists
· Forums
Welcome to our website
To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.
I/O Battle: SCSI vs. IDE @ GamePC!
Posted by: Jim on: 08/16/2001 11:30 PM [ Print | 19 comment(s) ]
I see questions in forums (and in my inbox) on this issue -all- the time. The endless SCSI vs. IDE debate. The guys over at GamePC decided to run the numbers and see how bad IDE gets handed its butt what happened.
As you can tell, both configurations have their strong and weak points. SCSI RAID is quite a bit more expensive, but boasts incredibly low access times and high spindle speeds. Plus, the single channel of the Ultra160 SCSI card has the ability to handle 15 SCSI hard drives on a single cable. These features appeal to high-end workstation users and data intensive servers, where throughput is more important than actual drive size.Gotta dig those access times. I'm telling you, even single drive SCSI (10k rpm +) is easily worth the money. Read it. Enjoy it.
« Supermicro: Future on the Duallie Front... · I/O Battle: SCSI vs. IDE @ GamePC!
· Microsoft Posts Cumulative Patch for IIS.. »
Comment
|
voltron Master Dualie Posts: 1254 Joined: 2000-12-22 |
#10769 Posted on: 08/17/2001 04:54 AM
Who would have guessed. MSI K8N Neo2-F, bios 1B | 3800 64 X2 | 2x512MB Kingston 2700 cas 2.5 unbuff | 3950U2D | 10K 70GB | ATI Radeon 800XL 256MB AGP | Viewsonic VX800 | Audigy2 | 3Com 10/100 | Mad Dog Surepower 550Watts | Windows XP Prof SP2. |
Comment
|
mckennma Unregistered |
#10770 Posted on: 08/17/2001 06:16 AM
Every one knows SCSI RAID is far better than IDE RAID. Why waste there time proving a fact that no one disbutes. I just wish Seagate would get me my four ST318452LW 15K RPM drives. I have been waiting two weeks. Today, my Hercules 3D Prophet III arrived. |
Comment
|
Jim_ Administrator Posts: 3464 Joined: 2000-03-15 |
#10771 Posted on: 08/17/2001 06:18 AM
You and I know that mckennma, but to be honest there are a LOT of newbies out there that come into the scene, read one article on IDE RAID and ASSUME it's faster than one SCSI drive. You have no idea the mail I get... No idea... [url="http://www.2cpu.com"][size=1]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad.[/size] |
Comment
|
mckennma Unregistered |
#10772 Posted on: 08/17/2001 06:31 AM
Most of them will never use SCSI RAID. The $1000-$2000 cost increase is more than their systems cost. The 18GB 15K drives are $350. Each drive has better performance than a Promise IDE RAID controller with four 7200 RPM drives. What are these drives going to do on a 64-bit 33 MHz Mylex SCSI RAID adapter? Most barely understand what IDE RAID is. I once wrote a series of Friday E-mails for Cantek on what IDE and SCSI means and its uses. It included IDE and SCSI RAID at RAID 0, 1, and 5. The research was very interesting. It would be interesting to post an article on it for your users. Educating computer users is what I used the Friday e-mail for. I explain SCSI as an investment in performance. It is not for average users. It is for those who want the highest performance without worrying about cost. It is like getting the Thunder K7 over an Abit board. I enjoy technical writing. It keeps my skills up and gives me a chance to keep the technology in front of me. |
Comment
|
GonePostal SMP Newbie Posts: 48 Joined: 2001-08-16 |
#10773 Posted on: 08/17/2001 08:10 AM
I really liked that tid bit of info. I found it very interesting yet I already knew most of it as I tend to. It would be very interesting to see a head to head review on comparable SCSI and IDE drives (e.g. both have the same space, RPM, etc...). I think the results might interest people in terms of the performance vs money factor. OMG! 1st post. I R NEWBIE! lol. j00 pwn m3h :rolleyes: Life is like a piece of cheese, throw one to a panda and it will dance through the bushes. |
Comment
|
Pariah SMP Newbie Posts: 31 Joined: 2001-08-16 |
#10774 Posted on: 08/17/2001 08:27 AM
GamePC needs to be banned from reviewing storage. I have yet to see a review from them that didn't have at least half of their benchmarks invalid, this article included. They don't have a grasp on even basic storage terminology like the difference between access and seek time. Their analysis is almost always all wrong. What a tragedy that they chose the Adaptec 2100S as the SCSI RAID controller. This card is widely believed to be the worst performing SCSI RAID controller out there. What was the point of this article anyway? Was anyone wondering whether Cheetah X15-36LP's would perform better than Barracuda ATA IV's? |
Comment
|
Jizzler Multi-Core Zealot Posts: 2066 Joined: 2000-10-28 |
#10775 Posted on: 08/17/2001 08:55 AM
Blah... 
Yeah, that just about sums it up. |
Comment
|
glitch Registered User Posts: 1173 Joined: 2000-11-18 |
#10776 Posted on: 08/17/2001 04:22 PM
The IDE Raid1 performance was better, much better, than the IDE drive by itself... I suspect this is due to the 32MB cache on the 2400A controller. The cache on the 2100S doesn't affect these tests as much because each x15 drive has an 8MB cache. This article didn't do much except inspire me to go buy an x15 drive, but I guess that made it worth reading. Personally I prefer Raid 5 which seems to provide a nice combination of reliability and speed. Perhaps mckennma can set me straight on this. |
Comment
|
Jim_ Administrator Posts: 3464 Joined: 2000-03-15 |
#10777 Posted on: 08/17/2001 04:30 PM
Glitch: A measure of fault tolerance is always welcome. Granted quality SCSI drives are less apt to fail than their IDE counterparts, I still would have chosen to throw at least one more drive into the mix and run with RAID 5 (if striping was my order of the day). In reality if I was setting up a workstation for myself that included SCSI RAID, I'd probably take RAID1 and call it a day. [url="http://www.2cpu.com"][size=1]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad.[/size] |
Comment
|
mckennma Unregistered |
#10778 Posted on: 08/17/2001 05:47 PM
I usually use RAID 1 duplexing on the operating system boot/system partitions. The reason I chose Win2K Server Edition for my workstation is software level RAID 1. I can place one hard drive on each of the dual U160 SCSI channels of the K7. Set them each to ID0 and mirror them. Redundancy and Fault Tolerance are at the controller level. If one or both of the on-board SCSI channels fail I can add Adaptec 29160 SCSI controller(s) to the PCI slots and just attach the cables. Win2K is doing all the work. The only other thing is having a separate LVD controller for tape backup units. You get better performance in backing up multiple hard drives on a different SCSI channel. RAID 5 is great for applications and data. I never install applications on the boot drives. I use separate hard drives for applications and data. Allows Win2K to have control and complete access to the boot/system drive. I also place the swapping in their own partitions on non-boot drives. I am going to try a users idea of FAT32 for the swap partitions. It does not need the security or overhead of NTFS. I like NTFS for boot and application drives because of 512 bytes/cluster. FAT32 usually defaults to 4KB and I get 6-11% slack in the drives. I will probably get the Mylex controller next year. |
Comment
|
Overclocked-P4 Unregistered |
#10779 Posted on: 08/17/2001 10:10 PM
8- 15K drives, RAID 0, ghost and an LTO drive is ya need  |
Comment
|
mckennma Unregistered |
#10780 Posted on: 08/17/2001 10:21 PM
The K7 has the 64-bit 33 MHz slots for a nice dual channel RAID controller with 32 MB of RAM. I would get two external RAID chassis and keep adding 18GB 15K drives. The 18GB 15K drives have better performance than 36GB 15K. If you are really want great SCSI and IDE information, go to www.storagereview.com It is an excellent site for reviews and information on SCSI and IDE. I saw some excellent articles on comparing SCSI and IDE RAID. I spend time every week reviewing new SCSI hardware. I found some information on SCSI Ultra DVD-ROMs. |
Comment
|
Overclocked-P4 Unregistered |
#10781 Posted on: 08/17/2001 11:31 PM
I'm waiting for a 64bit/66mhz PCI bus... might as well go all out if my current RAID controller supports it. |
Comment
|
mckennma Unregistered |
#10782 Posted on: 08/17/2001 11:36 PM
Will Win2K fully support 64-bit 66 MHz adapters? The Supermicro 860i board has 64-bit 66 MHz available. I have seen a few RAID controllers for $3000+ that have it. You would be able to get full 2 GHz fiber channel support on it. The drives are not there yet. The 64-bit 33 MHz can more than handle U160 in RAID 0 across 28 devices. |
Comment
|
Overclocked-P4 Unregistered |
#10783 Posted on: 08/17/2001 11:44 PM
Win2k does support it... I currently have a 4 channel, 66 mhz/64bit U160 controller... I've seen the numbers between this adapter sitting on a 32bit/33mhz slot and a 64/66 slot... almost a 60% improvement with large arrays. 64bit/33 might be good, but I don't feel like buying a board with 64/33 then wanting to upgrade 2 months later. I will look into the Supermicro i860.. not sure if I want an intel or AMD route at this time thou. |
Comment
|
mckennma Unregistered |
#10784 Posted on: 08/18/2001 12:31 AM
I have only seen them on the highend Tyan and Supermicro boards. Check the Intel 840i to 860i boards. I doubt AMD will have 64-bit 66 MHz in the near future. |
Comment
|
Jizzler Multi-Core Zealot Posts: 2066 Joined: 2000-10-28 |
#10785 Posted on: 08/18/2001 02:43 AM
AMD 760MPX, support for two 64bit/66Mhz slots. Asus and other manufacturers have boards planned using this chipset. |
Comment
|
bobby_sunshine SMP Newbie Posts: 2 Joined: 2001-08-20 |
#10786 Posted on: 08/20/2001 10:39 PM
The comparison they did was sorta silly. SCSI is faster than IDE--no surprise. But they used a four channel RAID 5 IDE controller (cost about $375) and then failed to use the features of the card. A more sensible comparison would have been to use a two channel RAID 0/1 card like Adaptec 1200a or Promise Fasttrak tx2 (cost about $90). Then the cost comparison is: 2 x 36gb scsi drives about $600 each + $380 controller = $1580 vs 2 x 60gb ide seagates at about $200 each + 90 controller= $490 the cost of scsi raid 0 is not almost double the cost of ide raid 0 (1700 vs 750, geez..where did he learn math) its over triple. If drives of a similar size were compared, a 7200rpm 40gb ide drive costs about 150. Then, for comparable sized arrays, the cost comparison is $390 vs $1580. SCSI RAID 0 costs 4 times as much as IDE RAID 0. I would have found it very useful if a 4 drive ide raid 0 array was added to the comparison. At 4 x 40gb (about $150 each) + 150 (for a four channel IDE RAID 0/1 card, like the Promise Fasttrack tx4) thats $750 IDE vs $1580 SCSI. Will the SCSI win? It sure ought to. But on everything other than average seek time, the comparison should not be so lopsided. A reasonable person cares more about performance per dollar than performance per drive. Ive had SCSI RAID 0 before, and I love it. But I love it most when somebody else is paying for it. |
Comment
|
Overclocked-P4 Unregistered |
#10787 Posted on: 08/20/2001 11:07 PM
600 dollars each??? Where are you shopping? You can get 36 GB 10K RPM SCSI drives for under $300 each on pricewatch. |