found an old scsi drive, worth using?

[rjcoolpix880]

i found a 9.1 Gb 10k raptor drive. would it be worth installing windows on it? it is only 9.1 gb.i have a wd se (8mb cache) currently. would it be any faster if i used it. my only worries are that the small size of the scsi HD and my installing programes and games on a seperate physical HD might cancel out the benefit. what do you all think?

 

[Crescent13]

Did Western Digital make Raptors in 9.1Gigabytes? You could install windows on it, and store everything else on the other drive.

 

[rjcoolpix880]

...but would it really be worth it. would i notice any difference.
maybe its a cheetah. the model # is st39204lw.

im also aware that i need a scsi card. i found one that matches the HD for $35: Newegg

 

[zephyrprime]

just because it's scsi and 10K doesn't mean it's fast. An old drive like that is going to have horrible performance.

 

[dexvx]

No, you're comparing 5+ year old SCSI technology to rather recent ATA technology. It would probably be slower in most tasks than a current ATA drive.

And the newegg link you pointed out... it seems like its only a UW (40MB/sec) interface. If you want SCSI on the cheap, browse eBay. Adaptec 29160's (U160) go for as little as $15. I recently got a Maxtor Atlas 15K II 36GB (the latest and greatest 15K drive atm) for $80.

 

[PicHold]

Me personally, I'd get frustrated with only 9gb on my main OS. I tried using a 20 once, and it wasn't enough.

So now I'm using 150gb in 2x74gb raptors, which is just about right

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
Did Western Digital make Raptors in 9.1Gigabytes? You could install windows on it, and store everything else on the other drive.

There are no raptor drives in 9.1 GB. noobie.

 

[t0mn8r]

Dude,
Dividing programs and data is a personal choice. I partition mine to be 8192 for the C drive for OS and apps leaving me about half the drive to spare (no pagefile).

This allows me to move the nasty old My Documents, My Pictures, My Music and Favo(u)rites to my Data drive.

I also make a Restore partition and do a clean image for restore purposes. My Data drives vary between machines.

To answer your question (and I agree about the previous comment about bad performance) the drive is not very quick. Just to load the OS and that's it.

SATA II drives (especially the new 74 GB Raptors) kick serious donkey and leave the old SCSI disks in the dust.

In short, invest in a new SATA II drive. The added hassle of adding a SCSI card, changing the boot order etc. is not worth the 9 gigs.

I don't mix SCSI and PATA/SATA on machines. Easier to manage. My main server is all SCSI with a 9.1 GB boot disk and 2 x 74 GB SCSI disks. My backup server is PATA.

Hope this helps.

 

[brxndxn]

Don't use the old SCSI 9gb drive. It'll most definitely be slower than a new IDE drive.. and it's not worth adding a TON of heat (they get hella-hot) to your system for just 9gb. Also, they are loud.. like.. 'typing on the keyboard' loud..

just to warn ya

 

[Vegito]

yeah i had those.. they were good 5 years ago.. i gave 5 away to a dude here.. he's using it now.. its good for learning scsi but not good to use.. they have like a 10-15 value on ebay..

 

[phaxmohdem]

Don't use it if you have a modern machine... as stated before me SATA is a much better route for that. However, if you have an older machine you want to pep up I'd go for it. I have a Dual Pentium Pro Proliant server I slapped a 10K 9GB drive in and it is now quite snappy in WinXP/2000.