without disputing any of your assertions which may be entirely correct, my personal experience has been different
every scsi drive i ever had died on me (4 or 5 of them, different eras and makers) i have never had an IDE die (knock on wood) also there is another layer to scsi which has given me trouble, the controller/driver layer which are more complex than IDE on various systems at various times with various controllers sometimes it was a hope and a prayer that it would boot on first try at one point i got a scsi scanner (HP) it wouldn't run on my scsi system (built by MICRON for $5K) it insisted on ONLY running on the crappy scsi controller they packaged with it after plugging that in i got it running, but there were still issues ... scsi did allow me to pile a bunch of drives in one box achieving more storage than i otherwise could have gotten, but that is all moot now for many (most?) of us Dennis Saputelli Matt Daggett wrote: > > Its very noticeable... especially if you have any kind of disk caching. Also > anytime you do anything I/O intensive you are taking a CPU hit which slows > performance. SCSI is intended for servers and high end workstations where as > IDE is more suited for the home PC user who is using AOL and Word. IDE hits > a great price for large cheap storage but its hardly a reliability or > performance solution. > > Also, I hope you have good luck with your new DEATHstar. To prove a point > about the unreliability of IDE drives you should look into the ongoing major > class action law suit against IBM over its Deskstar line of drives. Disks > failing at abnormally high rates and IBM turning the blind eye. Most users > have reported having a disk fail and then that replacement fail and the > replacement for that failing. Something like that would be unheard of in the > SCSI realm due to just plain higher quality drives. > > Another thing you should be aware of is that if you look in the IBM > documentation the deskstar is described as having "recommended power-on > hours" of 333 per month--about 11 hours a day. Drive reliability is > typically measured with the assumption that the drive is on 60 percent of the > time--somewhat higher than 46 percent of the time that 333 hours a month > would mean. On laptops, the standard duty is 40 percent, and on servers, > which usually use SCSI drives, it is 100 percent. So even in the > manufacturer's documentation they don't consider the drive to be used for > constant duty cycle. That's plain unacceptable for a work/development > environment. > > So to answer your question..."why would I pay 3 times as much for SCSI as I > would with ATA100"... higher throughput performance, half the access time, > 4-8X larger caches with prefetch algorithms, and 4-5X the MTBF. > > How much is your data and productivity worth to you? Is it worth saving that > extra $1-300 bucks? > > matt > > PS: Below is a link to a benchmark of a $200 Fujitsu disk in my system as > compared to all flavors of IDE. The results speak for themselves. > > http://www.mecards.com/SCSI_v_IDE_Benchmark.jpg > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:20 PM > To: 'Protel EDA Forum' > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD > > It may be fast, but it is useable or noticeable in a workstation?? > Probably not. I've been watching my harddisk like, and it rarely blinks. > That tell me my system doesn't spend much time chugging on the disk and > therefore why would I pay 3 times as much for SCSI as I would with > ATA100? I just bought an 80GB IBM deskstar drive for $90 to my door. > > I looked at the media transfer rate and the sustained rate of a IBM > Ultrastar Ultra160SCSI drive (at 10k RPM) and Deskstar 120 ATA100 drive > (at 7200 RPM) and the rate between the two isn't enough for me to > justify triple the cost. (And the fact you need a controller card that > is roughly another $100. > > Ultra160SCSI ATA100 > Media rate: 373 to 690 Mbits/s 592(max) Mbits/s > Sustained rate: 29 to 57 MB/s 23 to 48MB/s > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 10:47 AM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD > > > > > > You should invest in SCSI I/O if you have a lot of throughput > > problems to cause buffer underruns. I can defrag a partition > > while burning from the other without underrun issues and > > without burnproof. Most of the problems arise with all IDE > > based systems that use 100% CPU to burn CDs and MUST use > > burnproof or else you get a coaster. With a SCSI based > > system you'd see about a 1-2% CPU hit while burning. I have > > a 200Mhz Pentium Pro machine that I used to use to duplicate > > CDs that can copy a CD to five burners at 8X at once w/o any > > underrun issues. IDE couldn't even dream of that... > > > > I cant really stress enough how important I/O is to system > > performance independent of CPU and memory size. A single > > Ultra160 15K disk will outperform two ATA100 disks in a RIAD > > 0 stripe. Also when putting a SCSI disk under full > > throughput stress it doesn't use 100% of the CPU like all IDE > > based systems. Not to mention the reliability and increased > > cache sizes you get with most server-class SCSI disk. SCSI > > disks have no where near the high failure rates of IDE disks > > because you are buying a enterprise solution. Prices have > > really come down as well.. you can get a 73GB 10k RPM > > Ultra160 disk for about $320 now...that's really cheap! > > > > Anyhow, back to Protel... > > ************************************************************************ * Tracking #: 54020BF22366C24E97E55EF502C78A77D0AA09C8 * ************************************************************************ -- ___________________________________________________________________________ www.integratedcontrolsinc.com Integrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-0480 2851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003 San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
