I know why...SCSI vs. IDE

[acid45]

Yay, I figured out what the differance between SCSI and IDE(EIDE) is. I know why most people who don't know the differance have IDE and why most people who know the differance have an IDE...reason...CHEAPER...SCSI is fast IDE is slow SCSI can have up to 16 devices on it(8 if it's narrow) and IDE can have 2. Stupid IDE going slow and needing a bus foe each 2 devices...I still have to get some info on DT and CRC and well i kina got what Domain thing was btu I woul never know how the hell to use it, well start it since it's automatic unless it does this when you install it. One question that wasn't in the FAQ i read.

Do you need a specail motherboard to use SCSI devices. My guess is yes because you need an SCSI bus. One more thing, what is bus? :confused:

[TheHeadRoach]

A bus is a circuit. You could always just get a scsi card ... if you dont want to goto the trouble of replacing your board.

Oh and on a personal note, I've ran scsi. It's not that much better.

[Lorithar]

You wouldn't (as a single user) see any great difference in the access time with SCSI ... but when you have a system configured correctly to use scsi properly, and are running it as a server ... yes you will see an enormous improvement in handling.

On a footnote ... udma 100 drives are just as fast as SCSI 2 devices on a one to one comparision... however the SCSI bus handles multiple requests far better than IDE is designed to handle them. Get into Ultra SCSI 3 drives .. and the IDE drives just fall into the dust on long file read requests with writes going at the same time... keep in mind that EMC and other data warehousing companies are quietly switching to EIDE drives in their frames to reduce costs ... *BUT* they are mounting them in scsi trees ... where each pair of EIDE drives is actually a single SCSI lun with its own sub controller... wild stuff man...

[Dun'kalis]

My friend is getting a PC with some Western Digital 7200 RPM drives with 8MB cache. In most benchmarks, they consistently keep up with SCSI.

[teeitup]

Todays IDE drives are just as fast as most SCSI drives.

The really fast ultra SCSI drives spin at extremely high rpms and produce a lot of heat. They are also very expensive. It's not a good idea to put these high performance SCSI drives in your cpu case.

In order to get maximum performance from SCSI you need the right SCSI controller. These also cost a fair amount of $.

Many motherboards come with built in SCSI controllers now.

The notion that SCSI is faster than IDE is a myth today. In the past this wasn't the case.

Using the newer IDE drives and tweaking the parameters (hdparm) you can easily out perform a SCSI device.

Ultra SCSI disk subsystems from Compaq, EMC, and others are a whole different animal. They are intended for the San and Server market.

Beware the snake oil salesman.

[Lorithar]

I was only making a technical point ... read the message ..

Properly configured and connected Ultra SCSI3 will blow the doors off EIDE any day ... and they do FINE in a case ... Properly built for the purpose though ... They dooooo get a weeeee tad warm ... (considers keeping coffee warm on the drives on his desk.... *nope*)

[teeitup]

I was referring to acid45's post.

I didn't see yours until after I replied. I was trying to make the same point you were.

[mrBen]

The speed war keeps changing. IDE is now up to 133 Mhz, but SCSI has just hit 320. Plus the seek times are significantly smaller in most cases. But you _do_ have to pay a premium. As a general rule, SCSI is also more reliable than IDE, particularly in a 24x7 environment. I'm not sure the that IDE was really designed for 24x7, IMHO.

[Bokkenka]

There's also the controller issue... As I read it, years ago, IDEs were controlled by the processor, and took up time that it could be processing the data it was seeking. SCSIs were controlled by a card, there weren't many boards with built-in then, and let the processor continue it's work while the controller card did all the seeking.

So, what about built-in SCSI? Does the processor have to do the work?

[fireflayer]

SCSI might be a bit faster, but a whole lot more expensive. I'm picking up 3-4 WD 8MB Cache SerialATA drives once they come out and I'm going to run them in either RAID-5 or RAID-0. IDE RAID-0 comes on my motherboard as a $15 option. Either way, I'm pretty sure my performance will blow any SCSI option in that price range out of the water.

[kernel_forbin]

originally posted by Dun'kalis
My friend is getting a PC with some Western Digital 7200 RPM drives with 8MB cache. In most benchmarks, they consistently keep up with SCSI.
I'm using that drive right now and believe me it will keep up with any scsi from my standpoint.

[The Whizzard]

I have a pair of old Seageate 30Gig SCSI-2 drives(5" wide, 4" tall beasts that produce huge amounts of heat). Even though the throughput only average 14MB/s, they beat the crap out of my 80Gig Seagate BaracudaIV and 40Gig Maxtor. They get 45MB/s and 30MB/s respectivly. The reason being the SCSI drives have a 2.5ms seek time and the IDE's are in the low 20's.
Of course, when it comes to moving large files, the IDE's kick arse.

I've heard rumors that IBM is/will be making 2.5 inch SCSI drives.
With these drives they will be able pack them close together to make large arrays with little heat problems. Anyone have info on this? I'd like to hear more.

[acid45]

woah i expected a reply lke the rest of my posts this is great info guys thx, I htink I'll hold back on the scsi for now until i get a game running online so i dont have to pay server fees and ****

fees was feew so i changed it