• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About clille

  • Rank
  1. clille

    Poor Scsi Performance

    Are you sure that it is a PCI-X card ???? All the PCI-X cards that I have come across do not fit in a normal PCI slot, however old PCI 64 bit cards will work in both PCI 32 bit and 64 bit. Carsten
  2. Thanks for a good article, however it does not help me How did you define the single-user/desktop user, is it my girlfriend browsing the internet and running only Internet Explorer and ZoneAlarm. Or was it defined for someone like me running : * 8 Internet Explorer sessions * ZoneAlarm * Antivirus * Downloading a 500 Mb iso image * Downloading 4 small files simultaneously * Lotus Notes 6.5 (mail/database application) * copying 1000's small files from disk to disk or from disk to server * copying 500 Mb photo images CD ROM to disk * watching a DVD from a DVD drive all at the same time of course. It has worked better for me when I used SCSI instead of PATA. The system seems more "crisp" but I cannot substantiate this with any test. I have never seen a test that has really focused on power users like me - all the users in this forum are power users, but I find it hard to believe that the tests are designed for me, rather they are designed for my girlfriend, however she is not participating in this forum - this is a forum for technical users. Do you have any poweruser tests ? Thanks Carsten
  3. You have to check out SuperMicro's SCSI/SATA enclosures. I just purchased 2 U320 5 drive enclosures and you can feel the quality. check them out .... Carsten /Denmark
  4. The actual discs inside a SCSI or IDE drive are they build from the same material or are they different in quality ? If I decided to manufacture 10,000,000 harddrives would it be more expensive for me to set up my factory to build SCSI drives instead of IDE drives ? The casing, interface, chips etc. should cost the same to produce, the only real difference has to be either the discs or the motor than spins them ! Or is it only lack of demand that makes SCSI drives many times more expensive ? Carsten All-time SCSI fan
  5. clille

    SCSI = Lower Desktop Performance?

    Historically, there used to be a huge advantage with SCSI. You could connect many more devices to a SCSI controller while only using a single IRQ, whereas IDE controllers required 1 IRQ per independently accessible device. This was important when you only had half a dozen IRQ's to divide amongst all your peripherals. SCSI devices incurred much less CPU utilization before the advent of DMA SCSI devices were often better performing, both with optical drives and hard drives SCSI hard drives were available with higher spindle speeds and faster actuators Today, IDE has managed to make some of these points moot (see below), but old habits die hard. ACPI/APIC allows IRQ sharing and virtual IRQ's. SCSI devices still incur less CPU utilization than UDMA, but the difference is smaller, and CPU's are so powerful these days SCSI devices are still better performing, but for hard drives only, and IDE drives have improved performance on the desktop SCSI hard drives are available with higher spindle speeds and faster actuators, but the large caches with large caches and optimized firmware of today's top IDE drives can mitigate the performance cost of inferior mechanics in some (but not all) situations I have always been a strong proponent of access time being one of the biggest performance factors when it comes to desktop usage (despite the fact that large caches and optimized firmware in IDE drives have been able to mitigate the impact of slower access times in some, but not all, situations) and still say 15k SCSI is a nice thing to have if you can afford it. However, there is a new class of drive in town: the 10k SATA Raptor. This is the new power user drive. I would say this is a better choice for most power users over both SCSI and IDE drives. I have been using SCSI for ages for some of the same reasons .... and a desktop is much more "awake" with a 15K SCSI disk. I don't know if my usage is different from most people, but I constantly change between program and data, expecting that my harddisk is used to read from all sectors at the same time I have no doubt that many people will never see a performance benefit from using a 15K SCSI drive instead of a SATA disk. My girlfriend has an IDE disk but otherwise the systems are very much the same, P4 2.5 Ghz, but my system is more awake. I have considered using SATA Raid for my home server instead of SCSI, but a SATA Raid adapter that support Raid 5 and perhaps 6 disks is very pricy and the products are still very "young" - I still need to see IBM etc. supporting SATA RAID. Carsten