scsi useless?

**BipolarBill** · 08-08-2002, 01:41 PM

It's a given that a faster hard drive only helps when loading the OS/programs, Tony. Yes - applications are run from RAM until you write data (save) to the drive. If, on the other hand, you're compiling code, file serving or creating a database, the drive speed is of great importance. The average user does not partake in these activities though, so your point is valid.

As an aside, it takes forever to load Quake 1 from my ATAPI Zip drive, but it runs as fast as Otheos' AMD/Linux compiler once it's in RAM.

**tony_scarpelli** · 08-08-2002, 02:20 PM

I think we are in full agreement that SCSI is a better choice in any applications that use the hard drive heavily. What comes to my mind are heavily used Web servers, Transaction servers, Database servers, or any file server with more than 35 concurrent users.

I upgraded a 10 user network from a Compaq 350 mhz, 192 mb EDO ram, 4.3 gig HD using NT 4.0 Small Business Server to a Custom Server with 1.7 Gig Intel P4, 1024 mb of DDR ram, Adaptec 39xx Scsi160 raid controller with 3 10k drives on it.

The client complained bitterly when his users said they couldn't tell a difference. Obviously they didn't use the power of the 350 mhz computer. They have 10 users. NT 4.0 with Small Business Server (Exchange, IIS, Proxy, Fax server, SQL, Index servers) running on it. It is the only server in their office. They are no doubt average users for a small business.

So not only was the Raid overkill, the SCSI was over kill, the 1024 DDR ram was overkill and the P4 1.7 was over kill.

But I did sell them $5500 of what they asked for (about 9 months ago).

Luckily for me, I quoted 4 systems from $1200 up to $5500. They picked the most expensive, but they were still angry with me for over selling them.

So, live and learn. One good thing, they can probably run with that same server now for about 8 more years. Ha, Ha.

SCSI is a good technology but EIDE drives do a real good job for about 99% of home and small business needs.

In my opinion the same people who can justify a Xeon Processor could use SCSI.

**Ankerson** · 08-08-2002, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by tony_scarpelli

The client complained bitterly when his users said they couldn't tell a difference. Obviously they didn't use the power of the 350 mhz computer. They have 10 users. NT 4.0 with Small Business Server (Exchange, IIS, Proxy, Fax server, SQL, Index servers) running on it. It is the only server in their office. They are no doubt average users for a small business.

So not only was the Raid overkill, the SCSI was over kill, the 1024 DDR ram was overkill and the P4 1.7 was over kill.

I would much rather over sell the job alittle than under sell it.

I think they will thank you in the long run that you did build them that machine.

And you can sleep good at night knowing that you sold them one hell of a nice server that will do the job for years to come.

I always use SCSI HD's for any machine that is to be put into a server role. It is a safe bet that the SCSI HD's will last longer under Heavy use than the same IDE drives would.

So I say Hell yes! I would much rather be yelled at for building too much of a machine than one that is not up to the task and breaks down all the time or crashes every other week.

**Ankerson** · 08-08-2002, 04:33 PM

tony_scarpelli,

My server on my network is a Dual P3 1GHz machine with 5x 10,000 rpm SCSI HD's. (Fileserver)

I can tell the difference from the same machine with IDE drives in a RAID array.

I have over 100gb of data that I access everyday. When I hit that Server to Access the files they comeup alot quicker than they ever did with the IDE drives.

**tony_scarpelli** · 08-08-2002, 05:12 PM

going on vacation guys. have a nice week.

**morpheus kain** · 08-08-2002, 05:26 PM

Wtf was he thinking we he thought he was going to get awesome gaming performance just because he installed a couple SCSI drives? 15K SCSI drives are VERY impressive when it comes to speed in just about ANYTHING other than non-gaming use. On a side note, yes Tony's "articles" are very slanted, but it's almost kind of refreshing see someone that is that set on IDE. I tell you, if I had the dough, one of the first things I'd do, (assuming that my gfx card, mobo, cpu, and ram didn't need upgrading) is drop in 15K SCSI drive. The endurance is great, the speed is b.o.b. (balls out ballistic) and the heat isn't bad if you have a decent case.
On a side note, SCSI did make a nice performance in my buddy's machine. His uncle gave him a 15k rpm SCSI drive and a controller for his birthday because he kept them from a fileserver that had been damaged by lightning at his business. His system has a Celeron 300 at 575 or so with 64 megs of ram. It made a difference because he used a lot of Vmem which was sped up quite a bit by being on the fast drive.

**BipolarBill** · 08-08-2002, 05:48 PM

I don't see Tony's posts as slanted at all. It's a rebuttal from someone who has installed hundreds of both types of storage systems. He likes SCSI - I can read that much between the lines. It's just that he isn't a SCSI "disciple" and has room in his own head left for a balanced judgement per application scenario. That's the key. For storage-intense computing, SCSI is the clear king. For anything else, the average user will be paying much more for a minor improvement.

Ask Ankerson, Otheos and Peter what they would put in a gaming rig for a son or a nephew.

**Ankerson** · 08-08-2002, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by BipolarBill

Ask Ankerson, Otheos and Peter what they would put in a gaming rig for a son or a nephew.

IDE

**HOT RODDER** · 08-10-2002, 08:03 PM

Ok SCSI is faster and has some benifits in server and networked setups but the price is staggering. But the reason I posted was for whoever had a bunch of WD drives go down,,, serves ya right in my book.
I have had nothing but TROUBLE with anythin WD has put out with the exception of the 20 GB hard drives ,for some reason they never go down but even in a modified KryoTech case that we use cooled air to keep case temps down the WD's flat burn up.
I can sell Fujitsu, Samsung,Seagate and Maxtor and have near ZERO problems but put in a WD and here we go ,better order a six pack for warranty problems, and I have about a dozen waiting to go back to vendorswho will only replace them with like or better drives of same brand.

**morpheus kain** · 08-10-2002, 08:46 PM

I 110% agree with Tony's judgement in SCSI but they are slanted because he stated ONLY the facts that helped his case, not both sides of the issue. I agree that I would most certainly put IDE in a system for but I do feel that SCSI is quite superior and if somebody said, build me a NICE system for a decent price it would be easy. I'd put a 36gb 15k hd and SCSI controller, a good well ventilated case, a Gf4 TI 4200, an AMDXP processor, 512mb of pc2700, an 8k3a+, and a SB Audigy. Now if somebody just a wanted a good budget pc I would skip on SCSI and that would drop the price quite a bit. I have just seen poeple that browse the web, game very lightly, listen to mp3's and do simple things gawk at how fast a pc with an SCSI SEEMS. Most people just notice how fast programs load, and to these people a 15k SCSI drive is rather impressive.

**BipolarBill** · 08-10-2002, 10:34 PM

HOT RODDER is trying to corner the market on WD drives, I guess. If everyone stops buying them, he can snatch them up for a song. Everyone stop buying WD so he and I can get 'em cheap!

I have yet to lose a WD drive of any vintage. I can't say the same for Quantum or IBM.

**AllGamer** · 08-10-2002, 10:43 PM

through the years i've only lost 3 WD caviars.
but wayyyy over 6 Seagate on my own, and i wont even bother to mention the numbers from customers.

hmm.. this just reminds me of something...
brb.

**morpheus kain** · 08-10-2002, 11:17 PM

I have a WD caviar 4gb and after a second low level format and a couple dozen scandisks seems after not to have any bad sectors after all. I'll come back and edit in its age ina while. Dont really feel like popping the side panel off right now

**Ankerson** · 08-10-2002, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by HOT RODDER
But the reason I posted was for whoever had a bunch of WD drives go down,,, serves ya right in my book.

Really?

The only reason I had all those drives go down was I used them in my Fileserver in Raid 0. It was a test to see If IDE could take it. They were 60's and 80g drives.

I still have these WD Hard drives in my systems:

1x 13g 5400rpm (Over 3 years old) Running 24x7
1x 40g 7200rpm (2 years) 24x7
1x 60g 7200rpm (1 year) 24x7

And I still have a bunch of old WD's that still work.

1x 170mb----- 10 June 93
1x 212mb----- 27 Feb 94
1x 540mb----- 02 Sept 94
1x 853.8 mb---11 Aug 95

Plus 4 more WD's 1.2's and 2.5's that are in systems.

**AllGamer** · 08-10-2002, 11:45 PM

Would anybody care to add his/her comments in this subject

follow the link:
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthre...hreadid=113766

Thread: scsi useless?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

SCSI Vs EIDE

Re: SCSI Vs EIDE

Posting Permissions