- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 46
- 91
Originally posted by: Toolman
Right on Batman Nate, that was no comparison, that sucked! Get a SCSI RAID in there, that would be a comparison. Where was the Quantum/Maxtor 10K IV?
I'm so nauseated with hearing how SCSI is dead and it's a big waste to go with it over IDE.
Originally in the X-bit labs article:
Second, we saw that different disk subsystems proved better in different tasks: SCSI drives are best working under their native server workloads while IDE drives in RAID0 arrays do sequential read and write very well.
Not to mention, when SCSI is more reliable than IDE to begin with, your are quartering your MTBF running in a 4 drive stripe array, and that is data suicide.
I bought an 18.GB Atlas 10k III SCSI drive for my system a while back. Besides costing about 3 times as much for an equivalent IDE solution and being louder, it offered NO real world improvement over the 7200GB WD drive I was using before.
Originally posted by: Toolman
I bought an 18.GB Atlas 10k III SCSI drive for my system a while back. Besides costing about 3 times as much for an equivalent IDE solution and being louder, it offered NO real world improvement over the 7200GB WD drive I was using before.
You change hardware more often than I go thru rolls of toilet paper! My system has remained unchanged for almost two years. When I made the move from IDE to SCSI I went from a 5400 rpm IDE to my present SCSI 10K2 and I noticed a tremendous difference. It WAS and STILL is worth it to me. Too bad it wasn't a satisfying experience for you.
Despite your position, I'm still sick of hearing the "SCSI is dead" spin while they compare apples to oranges just like this article did!
Originally posted by: CQuinn
Not to mention, when SCSI is more reliable than IDE to begin with, your are quartering your MTBF running in a 4 drive stripe array, and that is data suicide.
I think that is technically incorrect. The MTBF does not change any more than it would running four drives separately on the
same system. Excuse my assumption, but I think the point you want to make is that it (running the drives in IDE RAID),
increases the chance of failure by a factor of 4, not that it suddenly makes the hardware inherently more unstable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're running Office, video games, and surfing the internet, not running an enterprise server.Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Toolman
Right on Batman Nate, that was no comparison, that sucked! Get a SCSI RAID in there, that would be a comparison. Where was the Quantum/Maxtor 10K IV?
I'm so nauseated with hearing how SCSI is dead and it's a big waste to go with it over IDE.
I bought an 18.GB Atlas 10k III SCSI drive for my system a while back. Besides costing about 3 times as much for an equivalent IDE solution and being louder, it offered NO real world improvement over the 7200GB WD drive I was using before.
I sold it after a month. To me, it WAS and STILL IS a big waste of my money and efforts (not to mention that you have to buy a controller for the beast).
Originally posted by: Eug
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're running Office, video games, and surfing the internet, not running an enterprise server.Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Toolman
Right on Batman Nate, that was no comparison, that sucked! Get a SCSI RAID in there, that would be a comparison. Where was the Quantum/Maxtor 10K IV?
I'm so nauseated with hearing how SCSI is dead and it's a big waste to go with it over IDE.
I bought an 18.GB Atlas 10k III SCSI drive for my system a while back. Besides costing about 3 times as much for an equivalent IDE solution and being louder, it offered NO real world improvement over the 7200GB WD drive I was using before.
I sold it after a month. To me, it WAS and STILL IS a big waste of my money and efforts (not to mention that you have to buy a controller for the beast).
7200RPM WD drives generally have pretty good performance. Thus, you might not notice much difference when going to a marginally faster RPM SCSI drive with a smaller platter size (less data density on the platters).Originally posted by: Eug
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're running Office, video games, and surfing the internet, not running an enterprise server.Originally posted by: NFS4
I bought an 18.GB Atlas 10k III SCSI drive for my system a while back. Besides costing about 3 times as much for an equivalent IDE solution and being louder, it offered NO real world improvement over the 7200GB WD drive I was using before.Originally posted by: Toolman
Right on Batman Nate, that was no comparison, that sucked! Get a SCSI RAID in there, that would be a comparison. Where was the Quantum/Maxtor 10K IV?
I'm so nauseated with hearing how SCSI is dead and it's a big waste to go with it over IDE.
I sold it after a month. To me, it WAS and STILL IS a big waste of my money and efforts (not to mention that you have to buy a controller for the beast).
I had been running SCSI harddrives for 4+ years and never had I complain about its speed. recently setup a machine for a friend with new 7200rpm IDE drives. Believe it or not there were differences. For some reason, the IDE drives wasn't as spontaneous as my old 10K rpm drives.
Lately, I got some 80GB 8MB WD drives in RAID 0 to test it out and yet again <---SCSI 0wned IDE. Simply put, access time on IDE drives aint in the same level as SCSI drives. I do have one complain against SCSI drives that is you'll never be able to sleep with SCSI drives cranking in the back of your room
Because they would be too expensive, too hot, and too noisey (well, the new 15K RPM Seagates are very quiet except when seeking, from what I've been told) for the benefits they would provide to the average user.Originally posted by: v1rtuoso
Why aren't there any 10k or 15k rpm IDE drives being produced?