Who's using top-end SCSI RAID-0 these days?

[s1rrah]

in the late 90's and early 2000's ... i was totally into SCSI RAID arrays; you couldn't have paid me to use IDE.

i used an LVD SCSI RAID 0 array for about three years and at the time, it totally smoked anything, RAID or otherwise, from the IDE sector. spent 1500 bucks on a sick ass DPT RAID controller and was getting sustained rates of 40meg+ a second (late 90's mind you)

is this still the case?

with the introduction of SATA drives and since i know longer make a gazillion dollars a year (internet boom rocked!) ... i've simply gone with the standard 7200RPM SATA drives and have been happy for my day to day use.

but, is high-end SCSI still *way* faster than high-end SATA?

i haven't looked at the latest offerings from the SCSI area in a *long* time ...

anybody running latest tech SCSI RAIDS? how do the compare to SATA RAIDS?

[ktr]

Latest Scsi is pretty damn fast in conjunction with a extended cache memory (usually comes with highend cards)... But with sata now, it really not the fastest any more.

http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=19

Frankly, I was surprised by the results! They show that SATA has a performance advantage! 10K RPM Raptor SATA drives appear to be on par with the performance of even a 15K RPM SCSI drive, and with NCQ, SATA even holds a very significant lead!

Now try Perpendicular recorded 15K rpm SCSI in raid zero... your talking about a 200-225mb/s sustained speed!

all and all...

HARD DRIVES are HARD DRIVES...(they still share the same mechanics)...

Scsi might hold a slight advantage in gaming for they dont eat the cpu that much, but is it worth the cost?

Scsi is perfered for servers due to (1) each controller can hold a large amount of hdd (usually 54) (2) raids like a pro with out any performance drop (ecc and parity checks) (3) Cost = quality, hassle free equipment (4) cpu independent, doesn't eat the cpu ...etc...

[s1rrah]

Originally Posted by ktr

Now try Perpendicular recorded 15K rpm SCSI in raid zero... your talking about a 200-225mb/s sustained speed!

200MB sustained speeds. that's just silly.

wish i had the money to go all out on the disk subsystem ...

[Alec§taar]

Originally Posted by s1rrah

in the late 90's and early 2000's ... i was totally into SCSI RAID arrays; you couldn't have paid me to use IDE.

Agreed, & in the SAME TIMEFRAME, I was much like yourself on that point-of-view... it was said that "NT is designed w/ SCSI in mind", so I went w/ it (Seagate Barracudas & Adaptec "relatively higher end" controllers, which cost!)

Originally Posted by s1rrah

is this still the case?

Well, I started looking @ sites online that 'specialize' in diskdrives, & the MAIN one being this one:

www.storagereview.com

& they SEEMED to have shown (since 2001-current) that for typical "end user" type use patterns & programs, that SATA is 'the diskdrive of choice' to go with, lately.

I still did see some SCSI drives that utterly rocked though, on ANY type of user pattern, mainly 15,000rpm unit types.

Originally Posted by s1rrah

but, is high-end SCSI still *way* faster than high-end SATA?
i haven't looked at the latest offerings from the SCSI area in a *long* time ...anybody running latest tech SCSI RAIDS? how do the compare to SATA RAIDS?

Agreed - I myself haven't actively looked to compare them this year, but have in years past & went the way of SATA/SATA 2 here, mainly because of these type of drives being optimized more for the "home/end users" out there, than for server use patterns (multiple user requests & such - & even though SATA/SATA2 now has some of the features of SCSI such as command queuing (TCQ/NCQ), it does not have them all, nor does it perform as well on multi-user scenario use-patterns as SCSI does - stuff like you'd see in "industrial environs" @ work).

* ANYHOW/ANYHOW - DO hit that site above!

They've got a DECENT site w/ a huge comparison database that compares server type use patterns, vs. gaming user patterns, & office type app use patterns, etc. & you can make your OWN judgements that way, based on how YOU use your PC... & they use commonly accepted gauges in benchmarks for ALL of those types of use-patterns possible.

APK

[s1rrah]

Originally Posted by Alec§taar

Well, I started looking @ sites online that 'specialize' in diskdrives, & the MAIN one being this one:

www.storagereview.com

thanks for the link . will check it out .

[gto78]

after looking at the comparisons, and total initial costs, it seems like the sata WD1500AHFD western digital raptor has the best "overall" performance. It's not the fastest gamer like the scsi, but did beat out the others for the office benchmarks, and noise/power/heat tests. Also you wouldnt have to buy a controller card like for the scsi. I'm thinking of selling my U320 SCSI drive and replacing it with one of the high end sata drives. MY OS is running on the old seagate U320 Cheetah 15K drive- but its only 18 Gigs. Somehow it's always full, and I'm forced to install my games on the slower storage drives.

[Alec§taar]

Originally Posted by gto78

after looking at the comparisons, and total initial costs, it seems like the sata WD1500AHFD western digital raptor has the best "overall" performance.

Hence, why I use them... that series, as my booting OS + Programs housing diskdrive in RAID 0. I have 1 windowed, & 1 not (the AHFD is non-windowed).

The 'most optimal' performance solution I could find really, for the most types of use-patterns, & the fact I am a single user, on a single machine makes it ideal for me & the way I use a disk (home usage really).

I say this, because typically from what I understand, modern EIDE/PATA/SATA disks caching-buffering schema & internal code for their operation on their PROMS is geared more to that use-pattern, than is SCSI & its variants, which are MORE GEARED TO MULTI-USER REQUEST type use patterns.

Originally Posted by gto78

It's not the fastest gamer like the scsi, but did beat out the others for the office benchmarks, and noise/power/heat tests. Also you wouldnt have to buy a controller card like for the scsi.

Right, again - it was the MOST optimal performance solution I could find... & I DID PAIR IT WITH A HIGH-END SATA/SATA2 capable 128mb caching controller from Promise that has its OWN "I/O Brain" onboard, to also lessen the general SYSTEM CPU usage that IDE/EIDE/PATA/SATA entails, vs. ScSi... my setup, is thus, MUCH like ScSi ones, in a way.

Originally Posted by gto78

I'm thinking of selling my U320 SCSI drive and replacing it with one of the high end sata drives. MY OS is running on the old seagate U320 Cheetah 15K drive- but its only 18 Gigs. Somehow it's always full, and I'm forced to install my games on the slower storage drives.

Ah, keep it around... that's a GREAT disk you have, by all means! Run her till she dies I say...

Just get some other ones for storage, cheaper ones... I do that here, & use 2 fairly BIG SamSung disks for that (160gb & 250gb) - they're my "CHEVY TRUCKS", not my "LAMBORGHINI" (the latter being my WD's)!

(Heck, w/ ScSi, you can 'chain' up to what? 15 items onto its I/O chain cable, & 16 IF you count the terminator (I used to use ACTIVE terminators (actual dongle @ cable end) instead of letting the controller card use 'passive termination', or iirc, even the last drive (iirc, some disks have a jumper to set, making the disk act as an active terminator, but not sure, but it would allow 16 actual disks chained that way, like passive termination on the SCSI card can do as well))...

APK