Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:18:10 01/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2004 at 23:30:31, Gordon Rattray wrote: >On January 22, 2004 at 22:40:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 22, 2004 at 22:36:23, margolies,marc wrote: > >[snip] > >>>And dont put your data to be accessed on a slow hard drive either. A ten >>>thousand speed rotating SATA (150gb throughput) drive with 78 gigabytes of >>>storage costs only between 250 and 300 USD. >> >>You were doing good until you got to the SATA drive. Throw it away and >>get a 15K U320 SCSI drive... > >I agree that SCSI is fastest. But aren't some of the SATA drives gaining on >them? A Western Digital Raptor 740 (SATA) can gain an average seek time of 4.5 >ms. Whereas, a Maxtor Atlas 15k (SCSI) may acheive 3.2 ms. A huge difference?! First I'm not sure the numbers are accurate. IE rotational latency is the biggest part of access time in today's disk drives. And the 15K drives drive the average rotational latency to 2ms, down from 3ms for the 10K drives... But more importantly is the accessing/transfer of data. I don't like IDE. I don't like ATA, I don't like Serial ATA. They are good, and they are cheap. SCSI is significantly better, when performance is the only measure. I have some SATA disks here on a machine, and it doesn't feel any faster than a normal IDE-based system. And when you compare it to my 15K SCSI systems that I have here, there really is no comparison... But you have to sit down, and copy some enormous files, to see what I mean, about how the system continues to run while the copies are in progress, not to mention how much faster the SCSI copy fill finish. I posted some comparison numbers here, several months back. They were not that pretty from the non-SCSI side... > >And then, the cheaper SATA drives may be put in a RAID config more feasibly in >terms of cost. So, overall I'm not so sure that SCSI is still so attractive. >I'm personally thinking of two SATA 10k drives in RAID 1 config. Given that >I've got an onboard RAID controller, how much would a better SCSI solution cost >me (2 drives + SCSI controller)? I'm guessing a significant bit more, and not a >huge performance increase to justify it. If cost is the issue, I'd go IDE probably. But if performance is the issue, there is really no contest. And software/hardware raid-0 will drive the difference farther apart... > >Gordon > >[snip]
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.