First off I have already had the "pleasure" of using a WD120BB(the special edition with the 8mb cache). In now way shape or form does it even come close to comparing with an Ultra160 SCSI RAID controller(utilizing a 64bit PCI bus at 66mhz) and a 10k Ultra160 SCSI HD from Seagate,IBM,Maxtor, or Fujitsu in terms of acess time, read write speed, I/O performance, you name it. I have had the please of testing 2 identical systems, one with a SCSI HD, and another with the WD drive. No comparison. For similiar money(about $100 more)you can get a much better performing HD setup that can be expanded(striped)over time as your storage needs increase. SCSI HD's also have that nice TCO factor to add also along with the fact that they dont outdate themselves every 6 months like IDE drives. If you even thinking about spending $300 on an IDE drive, where performance is a big factor, try out a system set up with a performance SCSI drive. I did, never went back and as the future looks never will either. When Serial ATA comes out just imagine where SCSI will be then, and by that time you could have yourself a nice SCSI RAID setup with 4 36 or 18 gig HDs in RAID 0 with 32-128megs of cache onboard your controller instead of buying a new IDE HD every year for very marginal increases at best in the performance aspect. Seriously, who needs 80-120 gigs???Who uses that amount of space??? If you do run apps or do need that kind of space then, you SHOULD invest in a SCSI setup regardless!Bite the bullit, get a true SCSI RAID card that can be upgraded down the raod and start chaining together HD's, see how high those HDtach scores will skyrocket!
Well, I need that kind of space. :wink: Every debate I hear about SCSI over IDE is all about performance, performance, performance.... I've been hearing this argument for several years now. Frankly, I never understood why people spend so much time arguing this over and over. It is like comparing apples to oranges. When I finally decided to make changes to my system setup (I had an UW SCSI setup on my Adaptec 2940UW mixed with IDE drives), I heard over and over to go U160 SCSI. I could get a 36 GB 10k or 15k drive for X amount of dollars and performance will be awesome, blah, blah.... I couldn't even fit 1/2 my collection of compressed videos on a drive that small. Again, my priority was CAPACITY. I also wanted some redundancy, hence an IDE RAID made perfect sense. I ended up getting an Adaptec 2400a with 3 120GB WD drives and setting up a RAID 5 configuration. I get over 200 GB of usuable space plus the redundancy I needed. I can even add a total of 128 MB of cache and another drive if I wanted. Please don't say all IDE RAID is crap, not everyone is interested in striping 4 drives in RAID 0 on their Highpoint controllers (the comparison everyone makes when they slam IDE RAID). Performance is good and most important I get the capacity my needs require. I would have gone broke setting up a SCSI RAID configuration with the same usuable capacity + redundancy. Also, I wanted to keep it down to three drives to keep the noise and heat down to a reasonable level.
If you are happy with your SCSI configuration and it suits your needs, that's cool. Everyone has their own needs.... 8)