SCSI-ultra160 no RAID or ATA100 in RAID 0 ?

[darius]

I have SCSI2-ultra Seagate Barracuda drives that I use for my OS and apps, and I wanted to add a couple of IBM 75GXP drives in RAID 0 config. I'm trying to get some performance info before I get the IBM drives, is it even worth it.

Will I get better performance from SCSI2-ultra (Seagate barracuda 7200rpm. 9ms, no RAID) verses 2 IBM 75GXP ATA100 7200rpm, 9ms in RAID 0 config?
What about SCSI-ultra160 (Cheetah 18XL 10033rpm. 5.2ms, no RAID) verses 2 IBM 75GXP ATA100 7200rpm, 9ms in RAID 0 config?

Controllers used: Adaptec 2940u, Adaptec 29160, Abit KT7 RAID

Also, does anyone have comments on the CPU utilization between SCSI and IDE-RAID? My IDE system kills the CPU when doing heavy disk activity while my SCSI systems just fly and CPU could care less

Thanks

 

[Kodiak]

you just answered your own question as to IDE/SCSI CPU utilization

IDE uses CPU a LOT more than SCSI...

 

[Raistlin]

Scsi is good for servers because of low cpu util. and also advanced command queue, think how bad your ide hdd works when you try to do 2 things at once, that all said
you can get massive storage and excellent performance
from a couple 30-40 gig ibm, in a raid 0 esp in a workstation. although scsi is still the way to go for major network servers