cards were adaptec
HP scanner was mid to top of line at the time

Dennis Saputelli

Matt Daggett wrote:
> 
> What kind of card was it?  You cant really blame the SCSI interface itself if
> you were using an cheap/unsupported device.  Just as in any computer
> hardware... its all worthless without good drivers.  Most OS's have innate
> and very good driver support for the standard and popular SCSI cards on the
> market (Adaptec families, etc).  Getting a scanner to work with a $10 bundled
> controller card is another story.  If you bought the bottom-of-the-line model
> from KIA and it broke down you wouldn't draw the conclusion "cars suck" would
> you.
> 
> But there is no point in continuing this thread really... I'm sure everyone
> could chime in with their $0.02 about their experience with every drive
> model/make/interface since they ever had a computer.  Again, the initial
> thread was that slow I/O and CPU overhead due to a particular storage
> interface COULD have been one of the reasons certain list members couldn't
> complete CD burns without babying their machines or at all.
> 
> There are significant hardware improvements in SCSI disks other than just a
> faster spindle speed.  The materials used in the platters are much more
> advanced to minimized bad sectors and the servos on the heads are faster and
> more precise for continuous sustained read/seek performance.  Not to mention
> all of the on-board logic to implement better data prefetch and location
> prediction.  Increased MTBF and 100% duty cycles.  The disks are made to hit
> two points within the professional and enterprise community: known
> reliability and high performance.  IDE disks on the other had while embracing
> many of the same technical upgrades through the years as SCSI technology are
> made to provide the consumer market with: large storage density and cheap
> price.  Even as the quality of the disks themselves increase there will still
> always be the CPU hit due to the fact that IDE cannot multitask.
> 
> To each his own... if you don't want to pay more for hard drives, then don't.
> If you are pleased with your IDE reliability through the years, then keep
> using them.  If you don't think there could possibly be any improvement in
> SCSI disks than IDE to warrant the higher price tag then continue to think
> that way.  But there are clear cut technological and application differences
> for each of the storage technologies to meet a particular
> customer/price/performance.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:33 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE & IBM Deathstars (was Protel vs.
> DirectCD)
> 
> 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

-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to