Sign in to follow this  
sephroth777

You guys now have me all confused!!! HA HA...

Recommended Posts

I was planning on this setup

HD: Seagate Cheetah 15k SCSI LW

SCSI Card: Tekram DC-390U3W

SCSI CD Rom: Plextor 40x Wide

CDRW: Plextor 40/12/40

I was planning on getting a IDE CDRW due to the higher speeds compared to the SCSI versions that are out there. But if anyone has any suggestion or comments it would be greatly appreciated!

Now my confusion:

After reading the latest post regarding the WD800JB (earlier I was planning on getting the WD1200JB but then was steered to SCSI) Many are stating that SCSI for desktops (ie. gaming/internet) which I do primarly have no difference compared to say the latest WD drives.

So my problem is I was planning to order the SCSI setup this weekend cause I figured it would be the best performance but now I am looking at the ATA HDs and wondering if the greater cost of SCSI is actually worth it due to the performance of SCSI and WD ATA drives?

Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(or definitely faster).

I will give you my interpretation. After all, i am sure we can find a common ground between all the SR members: If you don't care about money you can eventually go for it, why not. If, on the other hand, money matters for you then it's most probably not worth it.

Now if you don't need all the space offered by the cheaper and competing unit, if you think the price tag of the X15-36LP is still accessible (you must probably be a US resident in this case) and maybe if you own the SCSI controller already you have some more variables that could convince you to purchase this drive all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you pretty much have said it already. For typical desktop usage, you will not find any significant performance advantages with SCSI. There are of course other benefits to SCSI beyond storage (i.e., reliability and scalability) and you can decide if those justify the premium. One rarely cited advantage of IDE/ATA is that the lower cost allows the user to upgrade more frequently--although with the seagate's pricing of the X15 family, this advantage is decreasing (withstanding cost-per-GB, and controller pricing). As far as your perpherials go, there wont be any gains, but you might experience fewer underruns if you were prone to that.

You wont be dissappointed with performance with your proposed configuation, but you may not be satisfied with the comparitive differences with IDE/ATA when weighted with price--especially if your expectations are for SCSI to have significant performance gains in your desktop usage. This has been explained in other threads very well, but even if SCSI offered a 50% advantage, if in the usage pattern for a typical task an IDE/ATA drive takes 2 seconds to accomplish, how much does 1 second mean to you at 50%? This is SCSI truly shines in heavier I/O usage patterns because in the real world fullfilling all of those requests add up to often significant savings.

My suggestion here is that if you do proceed with your proposal, do so with expectations unrelated to SCSI performance and moreso with the other excellent qualities characteristic of SCSI. Have no illusions that for gaming and internet, performance will be compartively nominal. Of course reliability will be excellent and you will carry this drive with you for years (great thing about scaliability and reliability). And you couldn't big two greater companies... I have VERY high opinions of Seagate and tekram (both of which I like seeing money go to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...of course, if you get the SCSI, you will be wondering if you should have gotten the IDE/ATA, and if you get the IDE/ATA, you will be wondering if the SCSI would have been better. Either way there will probably be one point where ur beating youreself over your head over it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree with if I went SCSI should I have gone ATA or vise versa?

Very true!

I am proposing maybe the 18.6GB Seagate 15K (for OS and gaming) and getting a WD800JB for files, mp3's etc.

Would that be a better proposal then the one posted orignally?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a very good solution - it's served me very well for a long time. Fast OS/apps disk on SCSI, and IDE for online file storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would actually suggest is having ONLY the OS on your SCSI drive. Unless your drive can pull great ATTO scores, especially on multiple I/O, then put the apps on there as well. I have two IBM drives, one's SCSI, and one's IDE, and I only keep my OS on my SCSI drive. It gets crap ATTO scores, so I put all the apps and everything else on the IDE since it's much better at it. That plus I use the SCSI drive for when I need to compress data (i.e. videos, computer renderings) cuz that way I give all the processor to compression.

That's almost pretty much the ONLY benefit that I've found from using SCSI drive is that it doesn't use the processor much. Although, I've posted this before and people have asked me how I measure it, but it's just..that's what I've noticed..and I notice it even more when I'm compressing 11.6 GB of video into 245 MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's off topic but out of curiosity:

Is it possible that your software uses an "idle thread priority" so that the slightest bit of CPU utilization would halt the process ?

Personnally i have my OS and apps on the same SCSI drive while the swap file and all the auxiliary stuff is being done on my remaining (IDE) units. Generally speaking, separating the load on several drives is usually always a nice idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in best performance and setup a SCSI drive and a large capacity IDE drive would be best or have just one SCSI drive large capactiy would warrent best performance...

Put it this way I am upgrading from a Quantum Bigfoot 9.6 GB and still have 2GB of space left on it (and ANY upgrade would be a HUGE notice for me cause of the POS drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest reason why I keep the apps and stuff of my OS drive is because if my drive for whatever reason gets hit with a virus, I can quickly shutdown the system, unplug the IDE (data) drive, and isolate the virus. That way, I would only have to re-install the OS. Technically..I would "have to" re-install the programs, but it's more to re-register it with the Windows registry than an actual installation. And it has all the files that I need, and nothing's changed.

Personally, if I did more with the SCSI drive, then I would recommend it. Granted it does come with it's performance benefits, but that really depends on what you're doing and how often you'd be able to take advantage of it. I think that if I could rebuild my system, I would probably dump the SCSI system, cuz though it is a good thing with the performance, I just don't really use it enough to merit the $600 CDN. With that kind of money, I could have probably gotten two more 40GB drives and made it into a RAID5 setup. However, if you're going to be doing a lot of computer graphics work (whether if's Maya, 3dsmax, or video compilation/editing) then a RAID5 SCSI setup would probably benefit you best.

The #1 question you gotta ask about ANY kind of upgrade or component: "What am I gonna be using it for and how often?" Course...if you're a corporate big-shot CEO (well..if I were a big-shot CEO, I'd have a 256-1U rackmount units as my "tower" system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll be quite happy with the x15, I know I am. The slowes part of my boot is no longer loading the OS, but the ECC check, and the POST by the mobo, and scsi card. I have a pair of Seagate Elite 23GB drives for media. (ST423451W) They are big drives, but are the best value in SCSI storage if you can fit them. I use the elite's for media, the OS and all apps are on the x15, and I made a RAMdrive for my swap file. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who has'nt liked the performance on an x15.

Hope you like enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orion: how much RAM do you have??? (my swap file has gotten up to the 1 GB region before...therefore, I don't think that RAMDISK would work for me. *shucks*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in best performance and setup a SCSI drive and a large capacity IDE drive would be best or have just one SCSI drive large capactiy would warrent best performance...

Put it this way I am upgrading from a Quantum Bigfoot 9.6 GB and still have 2GB of space left on it (and ANY upgrade would be a HUGE notice for me cause of the POS drive.

Eeek!!!!

You'd be going from one of the worst drives in history to one of the best...

Yea, you'd notice the difference, it should be very impressive...

That being said, "best performance" is relative...

You can go to $15,000 solid state drives and it will be better than the X15, but that would be absurd...

Most people also feel that spending $300 on the X15 for desktop use is also absurd, when it doesn't actually provide all that much difference over the current WD and Maxtor drives.

For desktop use, the WD800JB is hard to beat right now, both in price and performance...

Unless you just have piles of cash, then by all means get the X15.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my whole SCSI issue vs. ATA

well it boils down to this I have an old HP that I got back in 98 and still using it but have been slowly upgrading...such as case/sound card/dvd drive/cdrw.....and I realize I really need a new MB/CPU/Video Card and especially a HD...but for this summer I was planning to upgrade to possibly SCSI since it is a great performer and is a great invest for the long term..I realize I could save over 400 bills with a WD ATA drive but since it takes me so long to upgrade that maybe SCSI would be worth it.

Now my problem is Ultra 320 which seagate has on there website but N/A in store currently and I am wondering if I should wait for that or just get the U160 if I plan to go SCSI.....cause I was hoping to conclude my decision and order tonight...especially thankful of all your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably should be said sephroth777: from what you say of your usage, ATA/IDE sounds like the better choice for you. Regardless of what you get at this moment, in 3-6months there will be a faster drive available so there is no long-term to consider. With SCSI the longevity comes from reliability and scaliability--IDE drives are warrantied for 3 years and most controllers only have space for 4 devices; SCSI obviously has longer warranties and more room, which is why people tend to hold on to their drives. Unless your usage pattern changes to significantly higher I/Os in either a workstation or server pattern, there wont be a performance gain noticable. Therefore, there would be a much higher performance gain by using that money for (a) getting a faster processor, faster video card, and more RAM, or (B) saving that money and upgrading your processor, video card, or HDD sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jehh said

Most people also feel that spending $300 on the X15 for desktop use is also absurd, when it doesn't actually provide all that much difference over the current WD and Maxtor drives.

I beg to differ.. In certain systems the NOTICABLE performance increase provided by FAST SCSI drives can be impressive.

I have yet to meet anyone who has used the new WDs (great drives) and then a FAST SCSI drive in the same modern system and not been floored by the improvement. Some are looking purely at benchmarks which make wonderful graphs of STRs and barely even mention access time, end to end seeks, tagged queuing and a plethora of other factors that give sharp performance increases. High STRs are helpful for only a few, limited, applications. This is all the new IDE drives give you. They still have ~ the same access times as their ancestors.

Many people who feel that SCSI doesn't provide much of a performance increase over the new IDE stuff are relying on old experiences with old drives often in a server environement. This is not the same as the new drives in a system that is truely being held back by drive performance.

Most older systems have serious memory bandwidth issues that will mask the abilities of the other subsystems, to include drive performance. The Intel 815 for example could only sustain ~315MB/sec memory bandwidth in actual use!!!. This kind of performance was the rule not the exception untill very recently. With every proccess in your computer needing memory access to do it's job this is grossly inadequate. Yet many people will use a system like this, add SCSI drives hoping for an improvement and trash talk the drives when it doesn't help. Computer technology improvements are measured in months not years. What was true a year ago on one platform is of little use today on a new system.

Before one spends hard earned money on upgrades for their computer I advise doing actual performance monitoring of thier system in normal use. Take this information and identify where YOUR problems are.

If you are having memory problems the fastest drives in the world won't help. Just as adding a faster proc and more mem to a computer with storage issues won't give the desired results.

Talk is cheap but it's your money. Advise from others is a wonderful tool that I use often but remember that they may not be viewing the same world you are. The perceptions of someone looking at a room full of $50K servers may not apply to what you are trying to do.

There are many great people in this and other forums who spend a lot of time trying to help people. They are an invaluable resource to many, including myself.

Your question was very general in nature which will cause people to answer from thier perspective. This doesn't mean that the information is wrong only that it may not apply in your instance.

You would get much more relavent answers if you stated specifically what type of system you were building with what OS and apps. you intended to use.

If the system the drives will be used on is not limited by shortcomings in other areas you WILL see improvement from the high end SCSI drives. The question is in your use what level of drive performance do you want?

Most here left NEED behind long ago.

I enjoy the fast response of SCSI drives. I don't need it but it's nice. The rest of my system was waiting for disk access, that wait has been reduced by the fast access times and other performance enhancements provided by the newer fast SCSI drives. now I hat e my PCI bus but that's another matter..

I wish you luck in your search. If you need to buy something NOW and don't know what way to go yet the new WD are great drives and will give you a solid starting point to determine your HD needs. The massive space they offer will always have a use even if you eventually replace them.

Again good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I am so interested in SCSI is its performance seeing as how if I get a 15k drive at 36.7 gb compared to my current 9.6gb that my size is plentyful AND the speed is a dramatic increase. I guess also just telling other that I have a SCSI drive does help too...I am well aware of the cost but it is not true that say 2-3 years from now my SCSI drive shall still be a great performer compared to IDE of the future time...kinda like where my system was 3years ago.

I am waiting for the new DDR400 mb and the new AMD chips for the fall so my mb/chip upgraded will not be until FALL 02 so I figure with the money I have now a SCSI investment would be sound (more than a WD 8mb drive) and then by Fall I would have money for the other computer equipment. Anyone else agree? or should I fish in the IDE sea....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found MicroWave's post especially insightful. You might want to read it again.

The SCSI vs IDE debate has raged since the beginning of digital time. I too was confused by all the conflicting info .. until I dropped in that first SCSI beast. Now I see what all the excitement is about. But like he mentions, it depends on your NEEDS, and the kinds of things you do with your PC.

Hard drives read/write files from/to storage. The more of that you do, the more likely you are to be impressed with the blazing seek/access times that SCSI drives provide. For me, a SCSI drives provides a level of *responsiveness* that you simply can't get with an IDE drives (much slower access times).

Compare seek/access specs of ATA/IDE drives from 3 years ago with those of today. They're the same. No improvement. STRs mean NOTHING if the drive spends all its time *seeking*.

Once you have a SCSI adapter, $200 for the fastest drive in the universe is pitifully cheap .. less than the cost of a good gfx card.

Radboy.gif

18gb x15-36lp boot/apps, 2x120gxp for cheap storage, tekram dc-390u3w, p4-1.6a (northwood) @2138mhz (rock solid stable), 2x256 samsung double-sided pc800 @ pc1066, asus p4t-e w/ ics chips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I beg to differ.. In certain systems the NOTICABLE performance increase provided by FAST SCSI drives can be impressive.

Your caveat is my point, "in certain systems" is the catch phrase there...

I have yet to meet anyone who has used the new WDs (great drives) and then a FAST SCSI drive in the same modern system and not been floored by the improvement.

Add me to that list, the X15-36LP is really noticably faster than the WD1200JB.

The problem is, you get used to the difference. Do I still notice the loss of speed now that I'm back to the WD1200JB? Yes, it is slower... but the real world difference is small.

What SCSI buys you is "snappiness", quick system response, etc... Yes that is nice, but is it worth all the money? Maybe so, maybe not, but to most people it isn't.

Many people who feel that SCSI doesn't provide much of a performance increase over the new IDE stuff are relying on old experiences with old drives often in a server environement. This is not the same as the new drives in a system that is truely being held back by drive performance.

No, you don't understand... I do know about the performance jump, my point is that the actual whole number change is small. You get a snappier system, and you get faster load times and a few other things, but the actual real world number of seconds and minutes saved is very small.

Saving 3 seconds here and 5 seconds there takes awhile to add up, and doesn't really justify the cost for most people.

Saying a SCSI drive is 100% faster than an IDE drive sounds impressive, until you figure out that you were only waiting 4 seconds to start with... Is saving 2 seconds opening your e-mail program really worth $300?

If the system the drives will be used on is not limited by shortcomings in other areas you WILL see improvement from the high end SCSI drives. The question is in your use what level of drive performance do you want? Most here left NEED behind long ago.

That is so true...

All of my statments are based on need, not want. If you want a snappy system with super quick response times and have the cash, by all means get a SCSI drive.

I'm just saying that most people don't NEED it, rather they WANT it. :P

Me? I have other things to spend $300 on, but that is just a personal opinion.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am waiting for the new DDR400 mb and the new AMD chips for the fall so my mb/chip upgraded will not be until FALL 02

DDR400 memory will be insanely expensive for some time to come.

Do yourself a favor and don't worry about that now, good KT266A boards are in the $75 price range and XP CPUs are dirt cheap.

Stick a WD800JB on an Athlon XP 1800+ with a KT266A board and you'll have a screaming system for the same price as just the X15-36LP will cost you.

Of course, if you have the cash, get both, but most of us are not that lucky. :P

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$300 for a fast SCSI drive is being a poor consumer which non of us can help someone with.

Fujistu MAN $126

Pricewatch also list a number of retailers with the X15 starting at $205

The prices you stated aren't current.

That post was not meant as an attack on you but mearly trying to point out that it is more useful to give someone the information to make an informed decision than a shopping list of what you think they should buy..No matter how closely we read someones post we will not have a complete understanding of what they expect. By giving them the tools and information that will shape the outcome they can decide for themselves what best meets thier needs and learn something in the process.

have a great day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this