SCSI What to do with it?

[aewithro1]

I have a 1GB Jaz drive that just died from the click of death. This leaves me with a SCSI card in my system not attached to anything. Since the SCSI card cost more than the drive, I don't want to just ditch it. I was thinking of getting a SCSI Hard Drive. My system currently has a 10GB 5400 Western Digital. I am almost positive that a SCSI Drive would be faster. I am looking for suggestions.

[JimG]

A SCSI drive would definitely be faster. What SCSI card do you have in your system?? That's the only thing that will limit what you can/can't do.

[Roy]

Sorry, JimG, a SCSI drive would NOT "definitely be faster".

Wide Ultra-2 SCSI transfers at 80MBps, faster than ATA66. The new Ultra-3 (Ultra160/m) SCSI is faster than the new ATA100.

Unless the old card supports one of these, a new IDE drive would be faster. Either way, go for 7200 RPM, it makes quite a difference too.

Of course, if the mobo itself doesn't support ATA66 or ATA100, then a card would be needed. Still, the cost might be less than a SCSI drive alone.

One advantage the SCSI card does offer is the possibility of chaining multiple drives.

[This message has been edited by Roy (edited 01-05-2001).]

[aewithro1]

The MB that I have does support ATA 100. The documentation I have for the card states that it supports SCSI 2, Ultra SCSI (SCSI-3)Ultra Wide SCSI. Do you think I could do better with just purchasing a HD that is ATA 100 @7200?

[Roy]

I would go with ATA100/7200. Unless you're handling gigantic graphic files or real time full screen video editing, that's the best bang for the buck.

If money were no object, Ultra-3 SCSI/10,000RPM would be best. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Here's (http://whatis.techtarget.com/WhatIs_Definition_Page/0,4152,212949,00.html) a good discussion of SCSI.

[aewithro1]

Thanks for the link. The one thing that is attractive about the SCSI is that it has it's own bios and is incredibly easy to boot to a different operating system without shared files or folders. I think the speed will be comperable. I do a small amount of video editing, and even fewer graphics. What I mainly do is run games directly from the HD, and Beta test a lot(lot) of programs on different OS.

[bdunn]

read here: http://grc.com/codfaq1.htm

I rfecently got a well out of warranty SCSI zip replaced. maybe Iomege will do the same for you

[aewithro1]

My only consilation is to have the disks that the drive destroyed replace. Iomega told me that the drive is, and I quote "a big green paper wieght". They will only fix the drive for $75 (I paid $45). Does anyone need any 1 GIG Jaz disks?

[otheos]

Roy,

A 7200rpm ATA100 disk (the IBM GXP) has a very high sustained (arround 38MB/s max), so it sounds far better than an old 4GB Ultra SCSI (20MB/s) drive that can do a max of 10MB/s sustained, right?

Well it may sound better but the humble USCSI drive will outperform the awesome GXP in atleast one use the following:

disk for the OS: constant and simultaneous access of many small files. The scsi has a lower access time (even 5400rpm SCSI drives have lower than 8ms read/write). The SCSI can handle simultaneous reads/writes better than IDE due to protocol. SCSI will burst more than the IDE (and this is 20MB/s vs 100MB/s, but the SCSI has such a supperior cache managment that by the time the IDE bursts once at 100MB/s, the SCSI will have bursted 5-7 times at 20MB/s) so that overall speed will be noticeably faster with the SCSI drive.

Remember what matters is the average transfer rate.

Now for large files (video/sound editing) the IDE will leave the SCSI in the dust, as long as nothing else runs from it (swap or OS/program files).

I realised the above (although I was aware of it, but who can believe that anything beats the GXP??) when I installed windows (only) on a IBM 9es Ultra SCSI (5400rpm with 512KB cache) and left the GXP with the program files and swap and saw the system flying!!!

I have since seen it everywhere, and with an UW 7200rpm 2MB cache SCSI drive running the OS (even with a max sustained of 16MB/s) I've seen systems transformed!!

SCSI has its uses, IDE its own.

[CMonster]

aewithro1 - what to do in the "meantime?" - an anti-static bag comes to mind.

Why not give a SCSI scanner a try?

SCSI CDRW? -another good idea!

How well a SCSI hard disk would perform definately depends a lot on the adapter.

[aewithro1]

That is fantastic information. I believe I will go with the ATA 100 7200 IDE drive . If later down the road I decide, or my system decides for me, to purchase another CDRW I will take advantage of the SCSI device. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do with the device in the mean time? Currently I have my CDROM fixed as a slave to my CDRW. The SCSI drive has a IDE interface. Should I run the CDROM , or the CDRW through it? If I did could I boot from the device that I connect?

[Roy]

otheos ~ Good points.

An afterthought ~ Although your adaptor supports Ultra-3, capable of 160MBps, I'm pretty sure the PCI bus/adaptor max is 133.

[This message has been edited by Roy (edited 01-06-2001).]

[otheos]

this is indeed a limitation, this is the new controlers (and hopefully new bus) come in 32/64bit flavors, to cancel the bottleneck.

[CMonster]

Good point Roy - and you are correct about the PCI bus data transfer rate being 133MB/s for the 32bit slots. I wondered about that very point. My Adaptec 29160 will work in either 32/64bit PCI slots - I expect better data transfer once I can upgrade to a mobo with a 64bit slot - now where is an AMD board with a 64bit PCI slot?

[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 01-06-2001).]