With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose use, C2D
E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard SATA2
hard drives I have.
looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little improvement
Re.
standard SATA2 .
I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
identical drives with a reduction
in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong) ...to get RAID speed
improvement with a
good level of error protection I would need SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI3 or more
drives ...all to complicated .
SOOO ! what about SCSI Hard drives ...I see Rpm's of 15000 ..access times
less than 1/2
that of standard SATA2 ..the only way it could into go in my system is
(presumably)
with a controller card into the standard PCI slots (33 MHz) ...does that
have the speed ??.
Orthough there is now something called 'SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI'
I don't seem to see this approached ever mentioned in connection to IBM PC
comp. Home computers
so I guess the answer is NO !!
Some one want to tell why ?
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse
> With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose use,
> C2D E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
> I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard SATA2
> hard drives I have.
> looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little improvement
> Re.
> standard SATA2 .
> I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
> identical drives with a reduction
> in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong)
How about 4 cheap disks in a RAID0+1 configuration. Double the effective
transfer speed, plus redundancy. Probably still cheaper than top of the
line 15k RPM SCSI disks + controller.
Do it in software, no need for fancy cards for that.
Tim S wrote:
> Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>
>> With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose use,
>> C2D E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
>> I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard SATA2
>> hard drives I have.
>> looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little improvement
>> Re.
>> standard SATA2 .
>> I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
>> identical drives with a reduction
>> in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong)
>
>
> How about 4 cheap disks in a RAID0+1 configuration. Double the effective
> transfer speed, plus redundancy. Probably still cheaper than top of the
> line 15k RPM SCSI disks + controller.
>
> Do it in software, no need for fancy cards for that.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
Exactly the right solution. I've got a RAID 0+1 array ( Western Digital
drives 160Gig) Gives 300 Gigs, total redundancy and a speed actually
approaching the SATA2 stated value of 300 Mb/sec and all this for a
little more than $200. Not only that if one drive does happen to fail
it's no big deal to determine which one and to R&R it and rebuild the
array. Also your down time is minimal, because the array can be
rebuilding itself while you're using your the system because the rebuild
is totally transparent. This is the best solution by far.
You don't typically hear about home users using SCSI drives because of their
cost. Yes they are fast especially with the 15k rpm ultra 320 drives, but if
you consider the cost per capacity, you'll soon realize why they are
typically reserved for use in higher end workstations or servers.
If you're serious, consider the cost of a SCSI Raid adapter for your PC in
addition to the cost of the SCSI drives, which at the 15k rpm level come in
capacities far smaller that what's available in SATA drives these days for
the same cost.
For a home PC that you're describing as 'general purpose use', going to 15k
rpm SCSI is overkill unless you have plenty of money to throw at it for the
performance gain you would get.
If you think Raptors are expensive for the performance improvement you get,
wait till you get prices on 15K SCSI drives of the same capacity especially
considering that you need to add the cost of a good SCSI card.
If you want spped and safety, you can always consider a RAID 5 array or a
RAID 10 array.
"Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam> wrote in message
news:463f6e9b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose use,
> C2D E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
> I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard SATA2
> hard drives I have.
> looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little improvement
> Re.
> standard SATA2 .
> I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
> identical drives with a reduction
> in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong) ...to get RAID speed
> improvement with a
> good level of error protection I would need SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI3 or more
> drives ...all to complicated .
>
> SOOO ! what about SCSI Hard drives ...I see Rpm's of 15000 ..access times
> less than 1/2
> that of standard SATA2 ..the only way it could into go in my system is
> (presumably)
> with a controller card into the standard PCI slots (33 MHz) ...does that
> have the speed ??.
> Orthough there is now something called 'SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI'
>
> I don't seem to see this approached ever mentioned in connection to IBM PC
> comp. Home computers
> so I guess the answer is NO !!
> Some one want to tell why ?
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") mouse
>
It depends how one prioritizes. Personally I hate drive failures,
and have been running the same set of four Seagate 15K.3
drives for almost five years now. They're built like tanks, run
at 30C at load and are virtually silent. My Adaptec 39320
controller cost $60 from eBay.
"HDRDTD" <HDRDTD@comcast.net> wrote in message news:0JqdnZuaFq34CKLbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> You don't typically hear about home users using SCSI drives because of their
> cost. Yes they are fast especially with the 15k rpm ultra 320 drives, but if
> you consider the cost per capacity, you'll soon realize why they are
> typically reserved for use in higher end workstations or servers.
>
> If you're serious, consider the cost of a SCSI Raid adapter for your PC in
> addition to the cost of the SCSI drives, which at the 15k rpm level come in
> capacities far smaller that what's available in SATA drives these days for
> the same cost.
>
> For a home PC that you're describing as 'general purpose use', going to 15k
> rpm SCSI is overkill unless you have plenty of money to throw at it for the
> performance gain you would get.
>
> If you think Raptors are expensive for the performance improvement you get,
> wait till you get prices on 15K SCSI drives of the same capacity especially
> considering that you need to add the cost of a good SCSI card.
>
> If you want spped and safety, you can always consider a RAID 5 array or a
> RAID 10 array.
>
> "Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam> wrote in message
> news:463f6e9b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose use,
> > C2D E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
> > I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard SATA2
> > hard drives I have.
> > looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little improvement
> > Re.
> > standard SATA2 .
> > I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
> > identical drives with a reduction
> > in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong) ...to get RAID speed
> > improvement with a
> > good level of error protection I would need SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI3 or more
> > drives ...all to complicated .
> >
> > SOOO ! what about SCSI Hard drives ...I see Rpm's of 15000 ..access times
> > less than 1/2
> > that of standard SATA2 ..the only way it could into go in my system is
> > (presumably)
> > with a controller card into the standard PCI slots (33 MHz) ...does that
> > have the speed ??.
> > Orthough there is now something called 'SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI'
> >
> > I don't seem to see this approached ever mentioned in connection to IBM PC
> > comp. Home computers
> > so I guess the answer is NO !!
> > Some one want to tell why ?
> > (\__/)
> > (='.'=)
> > (")_(") mouse
> >
>
>
On Mon, 7 May 2007 19:23:20 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
>With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose use, C2D
>E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
>I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard SATA2
>hard drives I have.
Doing which tasks? Often, HDD speed is a secondary problem
to lack of system memory. Certainly not always.
>looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little improvement
>Re.
>standard SATA2 .
What is it you are expecting, you can get a significant
performance increase without paying not only the base cost
of a drive but also the addt'l cost that higher performers
command?
A Raptor is one popular answer and rightly so because it has
lower latency, without the addt'l expense of SCSI and a SCSI
controller. You don't need substantially higher throughput
(MB/s) for your OS and "general purpose use", but you might
for certain tasks like simple manipulations (not compute
bound) of large, like video, files.
>I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
>identical drives
No, they don't need to be identical. They need both run
under same interface supported by the controller (whether it
be PATA(nnn) or SATA, SCSI, and your array size is limited
based on the size of the smallest member (drive) in the
array. Somewhere some crazy nut years ago wrongly spread
the myth that RAID needs indentical drives and unfortunately
the myth was propigated by those who didn't read any more or
never tried it.
>with a reduction
>in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong) ...to get RAID speed
>improvement with a
>good level of error protection I would need SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI3 or more
>drives ...all to complicated .
Well yes it is an additional level of "complication", and
more expensive. Now you have the crux of why everyone isn't
doing it... but you seem to want MORE than what everyone
else has so... you are weighing same choices everyone else
did and picking one way or the other like everyone else.
>
>SOOO ! what about SCSI Hard drives ...I see Rpm's of 15000 ..access times
>less than 1/2
>that of standard SATA2 ..the only way it could into go in my system is
>(presumably)
>with a controller card into the standard PCI slots (33 MHz) ...does that
>have the speed ??.
It has low latency. One SCSI drive with added cost of a
controller is a poor value, particularly so on a 33MHz/32bit
PCI bus. Better to just get one Raptor, see if you find
that acceptible, then if you do not, get a second one and
RAID them.
Then again you may just have insufficient memory as I'd
stated initially. Without having larger filesets than will
fit in system memory cache, the system shouldn't be
continually having rereads from HDD. Going with Vista you
will exacerbate the problem, more and larger OS files means
more time to read them given same drive(s), unless of course
you had the files cached in system memory, which is what XP
can also do, even moreso if you have enough memory and
specify a large system cache (Google for that).
Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
> identical drives with a reduction
> in reliability
The whole point of RAID is to improve reliability by duplicating data
across redundant (R) arrays (A) of inexpensive (I) discs (D).
>
> SOOO ! what about SCSI Hard drives ...I see Rpm's of 15000 ..access times
> less than 1/2
> that of standard SATA2
Access time to what?
Access time to a specific sector on a disk consists of the time it takes
the controller to tell the drive(s) what it wants, plus the time it
takes for the drives nearest that data to lift the data off the
platters, apply any necessary error correction, and squirt it down the
bus (be it SATA, ATA, or SCSI) to the host. For any given single-sector
transfer, the amount of time taken is so insignificant as to not be
worth considering. The difference for a single sector is hardly
different between an old MFM drive and a U320 SCSI drive. When it comes
to sustained transfer rates for consecutive sectors, that is another
matter, but for a home windows-based PC, is that really an issue?
> Orthough there is now something called 'SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI'
If you are looking at something like the HP SAS controllers, which
implement RAID in hardware, they are very nice, but expensive;
Similarly things like the Compaq Smart Array devices; Given decent
driver support (which as ever, is dubious in win32), any form of
hardware of software RAID is equally comparable when properly set up.
> I don't seem to see this approached ever mentioned in connection to IBM PC
> comp. Home computers
Because _**HOME**_ computers generally don't require large arrays of
discs providing tuned I/O throughput as well as redundancy.
<nospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GKM%h.16974$YL5.10669@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
> It depends how one prioritizes. Personally I hate drive failures,
> and have been running the same set of four Seagate 15K.3
> drives for almost five years now. They're built like tanks, run
> at 30C at load and are virtually silent. My Adaptec 39320
> controller cost $60 from eBay.
>
No argument there. SCSI Drives that are properly cooled will run for years
24/7/365. That's what they are designed to do in your average server.
No question that if your budget can afford it, SCSI drives are very quick.
A year or so at work where we do automotive component/vehicle testing, we
take digital photos to document parts as they are being tested.
For years, our photographer has been running Windows NT4 and Photoshop on a
system with Dual 650Mhz P3's with 1gig ram running on 10K Atlas HD's from
9gig to 74gig each.
We built him a new system from scratch, running a 3Ghz P4, 2gig ram, booting
from a 36gig Raptor and running Windows 2K.
He tried the new system for a couple of days and promptly went right back to
the previous system with the SCSI drives.
That's a great price for a excellent (if not the latest) SCSI card. It's
noit a RAID controller, but it's a rock-solid dual channel SCSI adapter.
> "HDRDTD" <HDRDTD@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0JqdnZuaFq34CKLbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> You don't typically hear about home users using SCSI drives because of
>> their
>> cost. Yes they are fast especially with the 15k rpm ultra 320 drives, but
>> if
>> you consider the cost per capacity, you'll soon realize why they are
>> typically reserved for use in higher end workstations or servers.
>>
>> If you're serious, consider the cost of a SCSI Raid adapter for your PC
>> in
>> addition to the cost of the SCSI drives, which at the 15k rpm level come
>> in
>> capacities far smaller that what's available in SATA drives these days
>> for
>> the same cost.
>>
>> For a home PC that you're describing as 'general purpose use', going to
>> 15k
>> rpm SCSI is overkill unless you have plenty of money to throw at it for
>> the
>> performance gain you would get.
>>
>> If you think Raptors are expensive for the performance improvement you
>> get,
>> wait till you get prices on 15K SCSI drives of the same capacity
>> especially
>> considering that you need to add the cost of a good SCSI card.
>>
>> If you want spped and safety, you can always consider a RAID 5 array or a
>> RAID 10 array.
>>
>> "Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam> wrote in message
>> news:463f6e9b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> > With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose
>> > use,
>> > C2D E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
>> > I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard
>> > SATA2
>> > hard drives I have.
>> > looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little
>> > improvement
>> > Re.
>> > standard SATA2 .
>> > I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
>> > identical drives with a reduction
>> > in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong) ...to get RAID speed
>> > improvement with a
>> > good level of error protection I would need SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI3 or
>> > more
>> > drives ...all to complicated .
>> >
>> > SOOO ! what about SCSI Hard drives ...I see Rpm's of 15000 ..access
>> > times
>> > less than 1/2
>> > that of standard SATA2 ..the only way it could into go in my system
>> > is
>> > (presumably)
>> > with a controller card into the standard PCI slots (33 MHz) ...does
>> > that
>> > have the speed ??.
>> > Orthough there is now something called 'SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI'
>> >
>> > I don't seem to see this approached ever mentioned in connection to IBM
>> > PC
>> > comp. Home computers
>> > so I guess the answer is NO !!
>> > Some one want to tell why ?
>> > (\__/)
>> > (='.'=)
>> > (")_(") mouse
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
On May 7, 5:07 pm, "HDRDTD" <HDR...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You don't typically hear about home users using SCSI drives because of their
> cost. Yes they are fast especially with the 15k rpm ultra 320 drives, but if
> you consider the cost per capacity, you'll soon realize why they are
> typically reserved for use in higher end workstations or servers.
>
> If you're serious, consider the cost of a SCSI Raid adapter for your PC in
> addition to the cost of the SCSI drives, which at the 15k rpm level come in
> capacities far smaller that what's available in SATA drives these days for
> the same cost.
>
> For a home PC that you're describing as 'general purpose use', going to 15k
> rpm SCSI is overkill unless you have plenty of money to throw at it for the
> performance gain you would get.
>
> If you think Raptors are expensive for the performance improvement you get,
> wait till you get prices on 15K SCSI drives of the same capacity especially
> considering that you need to add the cost of a good SCSI card.
>
> If you want spped and safety, you can always consider a RAID 5 array or a
> RAID 10 array.
>
> "Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-s...@never.spam> wrote in message
>
> news:463f6e9b$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> > With my newly put together Home Computer ...games , general purpose use,
> > C2D E6600 @ 3.2 Gig, Geforce 8800 ...Win XP or VISTA.
> > I'm becoming increasingly aware of speed limitations with standard SATA2
> > hard drives I have.
> > looked at the Raptor Drives ...far to expensive for the little improvement
> > Re.
> > standard SATA2 .
> > I really don't like the prospect of RAID...I would need at least 2
> > identical drives with a reduction
> > in reliability (2 rather than 1 thing to go wrong) ...to get RAID speed
> > improvement with a
> > good level of error protection I would need SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI3 or more
> > drives ...all to complicated .
>
> > SOOO ! what about SCSI Hard drives ...I see Rpm's of 15000 ..access times
> > less than 1/2
> > that of standard SATA2 ..the only way it could into go in my system is
> > (presumably)
> > with a controller card into the standard PCI slots (33 MHz) ...does that
> > have the speed ??.
> > Orthough there is now something called 'SERIAL ATTACHED SCSI'
>
> > I don't seem to see this approached ever mentioned in connection to IBM PC
> > comp. Home computers
> > so I guess the answer is NO !!
> > Some one want to tell why ?
> > (\__/)
> > (='.'=)
> > (")_(") mouse
With today's modern SCSI drives, you'll find the next bottleneck is
the your 33 MHZ 32 bit PCI bus. If you're serious about going SCSI,
you'll need to upgrade your mobo to PCI-X. There are workstation and
server boards out there with embedded SCSI controllers, or you can add
a RAID controller to one with a PCI-X bus.
Reconsider RAID 0, with a small and fast HDD for a boot drive. I'm
running 4 disks in RAID 0, and someday I'll move things around to use
one disk for a boot disk and the others for RAID 0. Reliability?
Sure, it's less, but I've lost way more systems due to Windows
disasters than to HDD hardware failure. That's why now I have a
cheap, large capacity external HDD to which I do nightly backups.
--
"F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." --President Bush to three
U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion
SCSI Hard Drives for Home comp ?? 
Linear Mode
