SCSI vs RAID

[WildRhino]

I am waiting for the new DDR mobos and memory before building a new system but have been advised that I should opt for a raid config for the HDD. I had the Fufitsu MAG3182 SCSI with an Adaptec 29160n in my last machine that I had to get rid of.

I do not know the performance difference between the two options. Cost is not really a factor. The system will be used primarily for gaming. I may buy the new Plextor 32/12/10 SCSI cdrw, but some1 said that there will be 16x rw soon.

The aim is to build a fast machine with the latest technology.

Can anyone give timeline for DDR mobos( will they be reliable when first released?), memory pc2100 and new AMD cpu (266).

All help greatly appreciated.

 

[LTJLover]

Reports have it that they will start surfacing between now and January sometime. I am waiting for them too, but I might hold out abit longer to determine how stable they are and which ones are better performers. I hope Micron will release their chipset. I can dream.

Jon
"Water-Cooled CPU Runner"

 

[WildRhino]

How long roughly for a stable board to be released after the initial version? Or should I just buy as soon as they are out and hope any probs can be resolved with a patch?

 

[LTJLover]

Its up to you how long you wait, I will probably wait a month after the initial release. Hopefully this will give people time to publish reviews and benchmarks.

Jon
"Water-Cooled CPU Runner"

 

[hypnotic_kumquat]

Getting back to your original question "scsi vs. raid"... You are comparing oragnes to apples. RAID is an <b> implementation </b> of SCSI (or IDE) drives. RAID implies using more than one drive to accomplish increased fault-tolerance and/or performance. If you're looking strictly for performance, RAID-0 (Disk striping) is the best for you. This will allow multiple concurrent reads and writes, hence the performance increase over using just a single drive. The more drives, the better the performance (depending on the controller.)

All the drives should be the same (at least in size.) You will also need a RAID-capable scsi card (a little more $$ than a standard controller.)

 

[SoulReaper]

Go with the Scsi drive. SCSI runs things better and faster. how can you go wrong. DDR and Athlon 266 won't be out till after x-mas.

"upgrading is no longer an option...it's a necessity"
Visit www.elitehunters.com
--SoulReaper =)

 

[Flyboy]

I suggest you be patient and wait not only for DDR-systems to come out but mature, if you have the cash. Take it from me I learned the hard way when I bought the brand new K7M motherboard and Athlon 500. Two months later I learned about the AGP4x not being supported by Irongate chipset (and some cant even get AGP2x to work) and the sideband addressing issue. I read that sideband addressing adds considerable performance increase. Indeed my impatience taught me a lesson...

 

[Guest]

I have the same scsi card and have raid. I can tell you the performance of the raid beats the scsi every time.

But if you want to do some serious cd burning get the scsi. Scsi dosen't use your processor like IDE so performance is untouched when buring from scsi to scsi. I run quake 3 while I burn cds.

If you go for raid though the drives do not have to be the same size for raid striping (raid 0) they only need to be the same speed. For raid mirroring they need to be both.

 

[darius]

Wondering what kind of SCSI you have that you compare to the IDE RAID. I have SCSI2-ultra 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, if its even worth it. Will I get better performance from SCSI2-ultra (Seagate barracuda 7200rpm. 9ms) verses IBM 75GXP ATA100 7200rpm, 9ms in RAID 0 config? What about SCSI-ultra160 (Cheetah 18XL 10033rpm. 5.2ms) verses IBM 75GXP ATA100 7200rpm, 9ms in RAID 0 config?

Thanks

 

[RamaV]

I have to agree with most of what was said. Definately be pateint with the new DDR mobos coming out. I started a thread awhile back called "Whos got news about DDR MBs and chipsets" you can go look there if you like because i and a bunch of others posted some good links to various boards in the works. Ive been waiting for a DDR board for 6 mnths to a yr now (i hated RDRAM about 3 days after Intel started pushing it)
As for the SCSI vs RAID, well hehe it really shouldnt be versus, unless your talking SCSI vs IDE. RAID arrays can now be done on both. You will need a seperate RAID card (unless the new MB you get has one on it, but i tend to shy away from boards with tons-o-crap on them, i prefer to get my own). a RAID array will definatley improve performance, no doubt about that.

Rama

" He who (BLEEPS) nuns, will later join the church " Joe Strummer, The Clash - "Death or Glory"

 

[RamaV]

PS: in reference to the Plextor, the IDE version works just as well, and was actually out before the SCSI version. When i first got in the market for a burner, i figured SCSI would be better, less CPU tax and better throughput..apparently that was old thinking..most burners are IDE, and if there is a SCSI model, its only as good as the IDE. As far as ive learned the only real reason to go SCSI with a burner now is if you are going to have a big burner machine (in other words, a dedicated copier, with 4,6,8 10 or more burners on it). Also the SCSI versions are always more expensive..for no real reason as far as i can see.
Right now the fastest burner ive seen is the new Yamaha 16x12x40 (i think it is) but from the reviews ive read, its a tad hinky. The plextor, even with a smaller RAM buffer rarely burns a coaster (..a coaster is a CD that got ruined because of Buffer Underrun...which is when your HD doesnt transfer the data to the burner fast enough or consistently enough, and the CD gets ruined) Plextor got around that issue with software as far as i could figure out, but the Sony anr Ricoh and other ones that caught up with the best Plextor model caught up by increasing the buffer RAM size. Mostly this should tell you that for this, SCSI isnt the real issue.

Rama

" He who (BLEEPS) nuns, will later join the church " Joe Strummer, The Clash - "Death or Glory"

 

[Grizely1]

SCSI by far beats IDE in RAID.....

Know what's even better? SCSI in RAID!

 

[Guest]

Regarding the Barracuda's vs. 75GXP's you probably won't
see a great deal of difference, depending on how many
drives you have in the string. If it's just two drives
the primary controlling factors are the drives _internal_
data transfer rate and the inability of IDE to operate
asynchronously. Remember that SCSI can issue an I/O
request and then disconnect while the drive executes it.
During that time SCSI can talk to another drive for other
purposes which is pretty slick. IDE on the other hand is
stuck with issuing the command and waiting for it to
complete on each IDE channel. That's why you want to do
IDE Raid on separate channels. See 3ware's Escalade series
if you want _serious_ IDE based RAID.

If you really want the fastest that exist, get the 15K RPM
drives from Seagate and put no more than three of them on
a single SCSI Ultra-160 string. You will get an aggregate
throughput of over 100MB/sec on the right OS with everything
tuned properly.

Also, on systems that use a LOT of page/swap virtual
memory (a misnomer on WinXX systems) be sure to use a
completely separate drive just for the page/swap. It
can really make a difference.

Let me know how it turns out. I'll be interested in your
performance nums.

 

[darius]

You are definitely right. I'm wondering how much of the improvement I can get with single Cheetah 18XL 10033rpm 5.2ms on Adaptec 19160 or 29160 over a IDE RAID 0 with two
IBM 75GXP ATA100 7200rpm, 9ms drives. I'm looking at around $400 for the SCSI solution verses $260 for the two IBM drives (I have the Abit KT7RAID motherboard)
I'm quite sure that the SCSI would be faster, and use far less CPU, but the difference in price and 9gb verses 60gb for IBMs... is something to at least thing about.
I been using SCSI II for 6 years and SCSI II Ultra for 3 years. My CD, CDR and scanner are SCSI as well. The lest thing I want on my 1GHz AMD system is to skip while playing MP3s and doing some heavy drive access

 

[WildRhino]

Is there newhere that has figures on the SCSI vs IDE RAID argument. A single SCSI it seems would beat IDE RAID but that just seems to be ppls's opinions.

Again thx for all the feedback.

 

[Guest]

You know?

SCSI is the answer. Period. 18.3 GB LW 10K rpm # 07N3210 will be o.k to your budget?

$ 315.00 USD

 

[WildRhino]

What is the brand and where is the serial number from?

The price I expect to pay is @ £300 ($450) and another £300 for the controller.

Is the seagate 15k ne good.

 

[Guest]

SCSI is not necessarily the answer. 5 years ago, that was without a doubt the default answer. SCSI gains you advantages only in the I/O side of performance now. IDE drives (esp ATA100) have the ability to run at about 20-30MBps PER DRIVE. Using a Promise or 3ware ATA card, you can easily generate 60+ MBps on 2 channel card. Save the $500+ bucks on the SCSI, it's just premiums.

 

[WildRhino]

So if u had no limit on money, u would go with IDE?

All I want is the fastest option. I need a definitve answer of SCSI vs RAID IDE.

Does ne1 know?

 

[WildRhino]

If I do go with SCSI is Fujitsu as good as my brother reckons? The MAJ series (ultra 160) would prob b my choice or is there another standard on the horizon?

Most ppl seem to prefer other makes like IBM,WD etc.

 

[Guest]

If money is not the issue and you want the fastest then get 4 Cheetah 15K SCSI drive do a RAID 0. That way u will get about 160Mb/s average transfer speed which is the single channel Ultra160 SCSI limit.

 

[Guest]

RAID will only hinder access times (not always but it can), which is just going to make IBM 75GXPs perform that much worse compared to most modern SCSI drives with already higher access times in everyday operations. Performance wise the IDE RAID only really makes since if you only deal with large files all the time. (but it does give you more Gig.. good performance at a good price). So I wouldn't RAID two IBM 75GXPs to replace any good SCSI drive. Of course cost aside if you had two good SCSI in RAID 0 like the Cheetah or the Atlas (controller would be outrageously expensive to0), you could have the higher transfer rates and the better access times.

 

[WildRhino]

Do u need a controller card and a RAID card for SCSI RAID 0? How do you connect them?

Also, I read that the Cheetah x15 comes in cache sizes of 4m-16meg, but I haven't seen them advertised? Can ne1 shine light upon this?

 

[rcf84]

scsi3 in raid 0 . no question ask its the fastest

ATI RADEON 32MB DDR RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Guest]

Seagate cancelled the higher-cache version of the X15. What you see out there now is all you're going to get.

---
Dave Farquhar
author, <i>Optimizing Windows for Games, Graphics and Multimedia</i> (O'Reilly)
<A HREF="http://thesiliconunderground.editthispage.com" target="_new">http://thesiliconunderground.editthispage.com</A>