SCSI 160 vs SATA

[bob4432]

since sata and scsi320 came out, the 160 stuff is pretty cheap now. is there any advantage of going with sata over scsi160? i was thinking of picking up a 19160 or 29160 and a Ultra160/320 10000/15000 RPM drive. would it be any faster than a sata wd raptor?

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: bob4432
since sata and scsi320 came out, the 160 stuff is pretty cheap now. is there any advantage of going with sata over scsi160? i was thinking of picking up a 19160 or 29160 and a Ultra160/320 10000/15000 RPM drive. would it be any faster than a sata wd raptor?

Yes, but it ends at cost. My beef with SATA/ATA is CPU usage, it's to fuggin high. I've been using SCSI for quite a while now though so I'm just partial to the benifits ATA/SATA dose not offer.

Don't go SCSI unless you can afford it. SCSI simply dose not slow your system down like ATA/SATA drives do, which becomes apparent over time.

 

[FishTankX]

It wouldn't offer much advantage if you are using XP.

XP has a problem that cuts the write performance of SCSI harddrives in half, and you need to turn them into 'Dynamic discs' to get it back.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
XP has a problem that cuts the write performance of SCSI harddrives in half, and you need to turn them into 'Dynamic discs' to get it back.

A rather glib summary of a complicated issue. Go to Storage Review and search the forum threads there for accurate information.

 

[FishTankX]

Indeed. I do not know the details of this issue because I prefer windows 2000. Which doesn't suffer from this issue. I do hope longhorn will be SCSI friendly.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: BD231

Originally posted by: bob4432
since sata and scsi320 came out, the 160 stuff is pretty cheap now. is there any advantage of going with sata over scsi160? i was thinking of picking up a 19160 or 29160 and a Ultra160/320 10000/15000 RPM drive. would it be any faster than a sata wd raptor?

Yes, but it ends at cost. My beef with SATA/ATA is CPU usage, it's to fuggin high. I've been using SCSI for quite a while now though so I'm just partial to the benifits ATA/SATA dose not offer.

Don't go SCSI unless you can afford it. SCSI simply dose not slow your system down like ATA/SATA drives do, which becomes apparent over time.

when you say don't go scsi unless you can afford it, are those components i am looking at not good? is it a time thing? i don't understand that part of the comment.

 

[Monoman]

having reciently gone scsi(4 months ago), I would say if you can get a 29160 family(if using windows and linux) or a 19160 if strictly using windows, and get a new 36gig 10k or 15k drive. I have found that increasing the HD preformance makes a more noticeable defference in windows operations than anything else. My home computer(athalon 1.4) feels WAY faster than my work PC(P4 3.0) and the defference is the SCSI interface. The ram amount is the same. If you can aford it(which what I mentioned is about the same price as a 160gig SATA) then I would say go scsi, otherwise... get a Raptor or a huge SATA drive.

happy hunting...

Mitch

p.s. if huge HD space isn't a concern. get a 15k 18 gig hd and really feel the speed difference's over ATA or SATA

 

[mechBgon]

My experience has been the same as Monoman. I use Win2000SP4, and have a couple of Seagate 15k SCSI drives, one being the latest generation (15k.3) and the other being the next-older. Last week I had to reinstall Windows on an employee's system that's similar to mine, and the difference in system performance between his Western Digital 800JB (8MB cache) and the 15k SCSI drives is quite noticable to me. By contrast, when I upgraded my system from a 1700+ to a 2500+, the effect was barely perceptible in simple day-to-day usages, although it definitely helped with big tasks like making a Zip file out of 1.3GB of data.

Also remember that SCSI drives are typically warranted and built for 5 years of 24/7 usage, which right there probably brings their Total Cost of Ownership down to IDE levels. You don't have to get an extremely expensive controller either... those $38 LSI Logic U160's at Newegg will work fine for any single SCSI drive out there, including U320 drives. Benchmarks at XBit Labs seem to suggest that for a single U320 drive, the U160 protocol may end up being faster anyway.

Anyway, if you want to get the overall fastest SCSI drive that is currently available, that's the Fujitsu MAS-series 15k drives. The Seagate Cheetah 15k.3 will run significantly quieter; its idle noise is below that of most of the IDE drives in our office, and its seeks are a light, pleasant noise, not a bag-of-microwave-popcorn noise like my ancient Quantum Atlas 10k :Q Both the Cheetah and Fujitsu MAS use fluid bearings, so their noise levels ought to stay consistent as they age.

 

[Monoman]

I actually have the 15k.3 and it smokes! I am running on another computer an u160 10k IBM drive and it still feels a LOT faster than my 80gig 8meg 7200rpm drive. althought the actual numbers of the mb/s transfer rate is lower, it's a nice upgrade!

good luck bro,

Mitch


EDIT: Thought I would say it's helps me with my statement when an ELITE member back me, Thanks mechbgon. I will indeed get a couple 15k.3's when more money is available(I'm in the Air Force and you KNOW we get paid the big bucks) but until then I will be just fine with my 18gig 15k.3

 

[Monoman]

have you decided? just checkin

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: bob4432

when you say don't go scsi unless you can afford it, are those components i am looking at not good? is it a time thing? i don't understand that part of the comment.

I assume he is saying, don't buy SCSI unless you are going to buy the best it has to offer, which I agree with. Don't buy older generation SCSI thinking it is a cure all that will automatically be faster than ATA. In a typical single application home user environment, current generation ATA drives are just about as fast as last generation and older SCSI drives. Only current generation SCSI, and more specifically 15k SCSI where the Raptor is concerned, is still tangibly faster than ATA. It's the drives that determine performance, not the interface. The 15k.3 is still a very good drive. Though both the Atlas 15k and MAS have surpassed it in performance, the 15k.3 may still be a bit easier on your ears and case cooling, but if performance is your main concern, neither of those advantages should matter.

If you work in a truly multitasking or server environment, SCSI, even older generation, still tramples all over ATA including the Raptor, but very few home users fall into either category.

 

[Monoman]

I have to disagree with the Atlas 15k and the MAS surpassing the performance of the 15k.3. according to storagereview.com, only the MAS beats the 15k.3 and it's only slighty yet we are argueing over numbers here.. lol

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: BD231

Originally posted by: bob4432
since sata and scsi320 came out, the 160 stuff is pretty cheap now. is there any advantage of going with sata over scsi160? i was thinking of picking up a 19160 or 29160 and a Ultra160/320 10000/15000 RPM drive. would it be any faster than a sata wd raptor?

Yes, but it ends at cost. My beef with SATA/ATA is CPU usage, it's to fuggin high.

Actually SATA CPU usage is lower then any/most SCSI drive(s).

Go here:
http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

Select "CPU Utilization ...." from the drop down and hit "Sort".

Notice the Barracuda SATA tops the list using 17.3% then a few SCSI drives then Raptor @ 23.3%.

Thorin

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Monoman
I have to disagree with the Atlas 15k and the MAS surpassing the performance of the 15k.3. according to storagereview.com, only the MAS beats the 15k.3 and it's only slighty yet we are argueing over numbers here.. lol

http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=232&devID_1=213&devCnt=2

Atlas 15k wins all 4 workstation benchmarks and the file server benchmark, while losing the web server benchmark by 2 IO/sec. Only the gaming margin of 12% is really noteworthy, but faster at all by definition is surpassing.

Notice the Barracuda SATA tops the list using 17.3% then a few SCSI drives then Raptor @ 23.3%.

And notice how the other 7 SATA drives tested are lumped together within 1.1% of each other with no other interfaces breaking them up, and then the 7200.7 is oddly 6% lower than the 2nd place SATA drive which is worse than every SCSI drive tested. Looks more like a bogus result than something I would hang my hat on. That drive was probably tested with the original SATA testbed which produced bogus results and was replaced with a new one.

Edit again:

Yea, I was right about the 7200.7. From the revised SATA article on SR:

"Note that the Barracuda 7200.7 is conspicuously missing. Long-time SR sponsor HyperMicro was gracious enough to supply a loaner unit for our previous review. We're in the process of obtaining another sample and will published revised results when we receive one."

So, the 7200.7 was tested on the old testbed and it's CPU utilization win should be ignored, as the result isn't accurate.

 

[Monoman]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Monoman I have to disagree with the Atlas 15k and the MAS surpassing the performance of the 15k.3. according to storagereview.com, only the MAS beats the 15k.3 and it's only slighty yet we are argueing over numbers here.. lol

http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=232&devID_1=213&devCnt=2 Atlas 15k wins all 4 workstation benchmarks and the file server benchmark, while losing the web server benchmark by 2 IO/sec. Only the gaming margin of 12% is really noteworthy, but faster at all by definition is surpassing.

Either way it's just numbers and if "but faster at all by definition is surpassing" is true the the 15k.3 being 12% faster make it fall into that catagory... either way, side by side I bet they feel the same no matter what you throw at them and personally, I would go with Seagate anyday.

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: BD231

Originally posted by: bob4432
since sata and scsi320 came out, the 160 stuff is pretty cheap now. is there any advantage of going with sata over scsi160? i was thinking of picking up a 19160 or 29160 and a Ultra160/320 10000/15000 RPM drive. would it be any faster than a sata wd raptor?

Yes, but it ends at cost. My beef with SATA/ATA is CPU usage, it's to fuggin high. I've been using SCSI for quite a while now though so I'm just partial to the benifits ATA/SATA dose not offer.

Don't go SCSI unless you can afford it. SCSI simply dose not slow your system down like ATA/SATA drives do, which becomes apparent over time.

when you say don't go scsi unless you can afford it, are those components i am looking at not good? is it a time thing? i don't understand that part of the comment.

I was pretty much saying an SCSI setup is a good investment if you can afford a decent setup. A 10,000rpm Drive with 8mb cache U160 and up is the sweet spot. All you need is an LSI Logic U160 controller card which is about 50 bucks at newegg.

I never gave SCSI a second thought due to the high prices, but deciding to plop down around $350 for two 76gig 10,000rpm Fujitsu MAP's and a controller card has been the most satisfying investment I've made in a long time. My computer is way more responsive in ALL tasks, and I find I have far fewer problems pop up in windows xp. I've not needed to do a re-install of XP since I got these drives and I've yet to see the common OS slow down you get with IDE.

Can someone point me to some info on the WinXP write speed problem???, more importantly how to fix it.

 

[bob4432]

thank you all for the excellent info. my reason for possibly getting scsi hdds is mostly for knowledge. i have used scsi scanners, cdrom and rws but never hdds. i was probably going to either pick up a used 19160/29160 or get the lsi one from newegg and also get a used 10K, 18-36GB rpm hdd, just to learn with. thanks again for all the excellent responses honestly, what i do would not warrant such the hardware, but the knowledge gained will be excellent

from my reading, u160/320 are not terminated at the device, but at the end of the cable. is this correct? are u320 cables backward compatible to u160? i am assuming i should get the 68 pin vs the 80 pin hardware?

thanks again

 

[Monoman]

if you can avoid the 80 pin drives I would. and find yourslef a U160 cable which is actively terminated. on the drives, I would recommend for a 36 gig the Seagate 10k.6 or the MAS 36gig.

Here is another option, go to the FS/FT forums, you can find what you are looking for at WAY cheaper prices. just do a search for "scsi" and "u160" and "adaptec" ect... (without the quotes)

well, Good luck

Mitch

 

[boshuter]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
Indeed. I do not know the details of this issue because I prefer windows 2000. Which doesn't suffer from this issue. I do hope longhorn will be SCSI friendly.

That's not entirely correct. Windows 2000 with anything above SP2 has the same problem. This is a very complicated issue that is discussed in detail at storagereview.com. I've heard that SP2 for windows xp will fix the prolem (i have my fingers crossed)

That said, I'm running 2 second gen 36gig 15k cheetah's on an adaptec 29320-R U320 raid controller in raid0, the only way I would change is to get newer drives. I had a 10k raptor for 4 days, lol, that was enough for me

 

[txxxx]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
It wouldn't offer much advantage if you are using XP.

XP has a problem that cuts the write performance of SCSI harddrives in half, and you need to turn them into 'Dynamic discs' to get it back.

XP doesnt active writeback caching, thats all.

 

[Pariah]

Either way it's just numbers and if "but faster at all by definition is surpassing" is true the the 15k.3 being 12% faster make it fall into that catagory...

Huh? Where did the 15k.3 win by 12%?

Can someone point me to some info on the WinXP write speed problem???, more importantly how to fix it.

Don't worry about it. The "problem" has been blown out of proportions and odds are you are not experiencing it.

from my reading, u160/320 are not terminated at the device, but at the end of the cable. is this correct?

Correct

are u320 cables backward compatible to u160?

There really is no such thing as a u320 cable beyond marketing. They're all the same.

i am assuming i should get the 68 pin vs the 80 pin hardware?

Correct again, the 80 pin version will require a pin convertor to 68pin to work on SCSI cards, so stick with 68pin.

 

[Monoman]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Either way it's just numbers and if "but faster at all by definition is surpassing" is true the the 15k.3 being 12% faster make it fall into that catagory...

Huh? Where did the 15k.3 win by 12%?

I misread your reply due to :beer: but I will say the MAS is a faster drive.

Mitch

 

[bob4432]

i have been doing a ton of reading and have more questions ->

1. cooling -> should i put the hdds in a externally accessible 5.25 bay in my case and use those hdds fans instead of the normal plate? i have a couple cases with hdds cages that accept a 80mm fan, i am assuming that is a no brainer, but the cage will accept 3 drives, should i just put in 2? i have read that some 15k drives reach temps as high as ~45C, does this seem high or this a true temp? also, is that the hdd case or is there a temp diode in the case itself?

2. power -> do the scsi hdds need more power than a 7200 rpm hdd? i am assuming they will since i will probably get 10-15k rpm drives and the drive motor will need more power, but how much? most of my cases are antecs with 300-350W ps. will this be sufficient for 1-2scsi 10/15k rpm hdds, xp2500, geforce ti4200, 1GB ram, ide dvd-r/w + another optical drive?

3. cables -> can i buy non-terminated cables and then buy the seperate terminator? are the terminated cables just non-terminated cables with the terminator block included? i know this is a dumb question but i have only used upto scsi2 which had termination on the device itself.

4. 80/68 pin -> i see a ton of 80pin hdds on ebay and other places. can i get one of those 80->68 pin converters without a performance loss?

5. 32/64bit card -> i see a lot of cards that are 64bit, my motherboards are 32 bit pci slots. i understand they are backward compatible, but should i just get one of the 32bit cards? or does this matter?

6. brand -> lsi? adaptec? i have only used adaptec in the past and am not familiar with lsi or other scsi card brands. are there any to stay away from?

7. mixing scsi/ide drives -> is it okay to have a 18-36GB fast scsi drive as my C drive and then use a big ide drive for large file (dv) storage(since i will have a couple after moving to scsi)? i am assuming this would be okay but just want
to make sure.

8. ghosting -> i like to use ghost to make hdd images to a dedicated ghost machine. this machine has a couple big ide drives in along with the ghostcast server, etc. are there any problems using ghost to get to a scsi hdd?

thanks again peeps, you have all been so very helpful

 

[Scaramouche]

1. A 80 mm fan should work fine. I usually leave about 1/2" to 3/4" clearance between drives. This works fine with the 4 SCSI drives in my case.

2. My 350W SPI power supply powers 4 SCSI (1 - 15K and 3 - 10K drives), 2 IDE drives, a DVD burner, an overclocked Barton, etc. with no issues.

3. You can buy the cables both ways, makes no difference. It may be cheaper to buy one with the terminator attached..

4. I have not found any performace loss using an 80 to 68 pin adapter but I do hate the way they fit. If you can, get a 68 pin drive, you won't have to worry about the converter coming loose.

5. LSI or Adaptec work well. I use a Tekram with LSI chipset; has been working great.

6. 32/64 bit is a not an issue on non server motherboards. Most quality controllers are 64 bit.

7. Use the SCSI as the boot drive and IDE as storage. I did notice transferring large files between drives to be a bit slower on IDE drives.

8. Ghost will work as long as you load the SCSI drivers