which is faster scsi or raid ide?

[zappppp]

which is faster? ultra160 hard drive or raid 0 ide?

[Mike456]

I'm not sure, but I think that there isn't much different between UltraSCSI160 and Raid0. But SCSI Hardhasks are very expensive and very loud, because they run at 10000+ RPM. You also need for SCSI a very expensive Controller and must applications don't need so fast HDDs (SCSI is designed for High Speed Server). So I recommend Raid0.

[unplugged]

Ultra-SCSI, by hardware and dedicated driver has quicker and smarter access time, talking about windows... especially with NT based systems (NT-2000-XP-.NET). But only *best* SCSI HD have much good (better than IDE) transfer rate, I'm referring to the loudest ones :D, 10000-15000rpm class.

Of course, for audio/video applications sequential transfer rate is the most important performance point.

With 2 unit based IDE-RAID you'll get very good transfer rate (almost doubled), these are more cheaper and faster solutions then single (but moore expensive) Ultra-SCSI systems.

Latest 7200rpm HDs from IBM or Western Digital seem very well suited to reach near up to ~90 Mb/s peak transfer rate ;). (~45 x 2)

Good shopping

[zappppp]

some people says that raid ide is a little bit faster but for short projects only, if you process 3 hour movie then scsi will be better.is that true?

[unplugged]

Don't think so, there are many things to consider.
About what is sure, windows caching sux because tends to saturate all RAM, so it's better to limit caching to 16-32 Mb using any suited tool.

So during use, when cache enlarges without limit (sorry, it's how works by default Win32) the disk access tends to increment seriously: here seek times a very crucial and thus I can believe that SCSI starts to play better...

Set a limit to windows cache, maybe high (64Mb if you have 512Mb), but set the limit!
And then we will see if the "hours" will slow down IDE. ;)

[FrEEwilL]

@unplugged
could you explain how to set the limit? i really hate that windows consumes all the physical memories while copying gigabytes of data.

[Phatty2x4]

Originally posted by zappppp
some people says that raid ide is a little bit faster but for short projects only, if you process 3 hour movie then scsi will be better.is that true?

In my experience with the 2 technologies SCSI is way faster than IDE. I use a hardware SCSI raid controller set up on my machine with 4 10K drives doing raid 0 and what I have found is that there is a significant increase in performance. I also had to pay out a bit more than I would have for IDE raid solution.

The main thing people need to remember : IDE is designed for PC and single purpose applications with a single user connection, SCSI is designed for servers and for multiple purpose applications with multiple concurrent user connections.

Quick note for MIKE456 - noise wise - the drives I have are no louder than my IDE drives (except for the initial spin up). The major issue is not the noise with SCSI - it's heat. You really need to keep your system cooled or you will run into issues!!

[unplugged]

Originally posted by Phatty2x4
In my experience with the 2 technologies SCSI is way faster than IDE. I use a hardware SCSI raid controller set up on my machine with 4 10K drives doing raid 0 and what I have found is that there is a significant increase in performance.
OK
Originally posted by Phatty2x4
I also had to pay out a bit more than I would have for IDE raid solution.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Phatty2x4
The main thing people need to remember : IDE is designed for PC and single purpose applications with a single user connection, SCSI is designed for servers and for multiple purpose applications with multiple concurrent user connections.
This is true but I remember you that SCSI harddisk mechanics head(s) can read 1 seek point per time, this is in the physics of drives.
The mechanics physics is the *same* of IDE drives, because they are the *same* thing.

So the "multiple concurrent user connections" that SCSI improves is mainly due to interface connection: :)

- SCSI excellent instant and parallel I/O concept (multi-unit>read/write)
- Advanced controller
- Hardware caching capabilities
- Genuine driver support
Originally posted by Phatty2x4
Quick note for MIKE456 - noise wise - the drives I have are no louder than my IDE drives
Fujitsu? :D

(best fluid bearing inside)

[Phatty2x4]

Originally posted by unplugged

OK


- SCSI excellent instant and parallel I/O concept (multi-unit>read/write)
- Advanced controller
- Hardware caching capabilities
- Genuine driver support

Fujitsu? :D

(best fluid bearing inside)
True true - very true

By the way:
I'm using seagate drives

[Skullworks]

The area where SCSI RAID will really Shine is in real time video capture. - This can also be done with EIDE, but for good results you should use a hardware RAID controller not just the built in software Raid 0 striping.

Without the RAID controller in an EIDE system it increases CPU loading to break up the data streams to the multible drives. This function is ALLREADY built in to basic SCSI controllers, and if the SCSI controller has specific RAID functions or can accept additional mem for cache, then the performance gap widens even more. Without CPU overhead because the SCSI host adaptor has its own processor for load management.

RE: Noise - I run Seagate Cheetah U160 10k rpm drives, I can only hear them during boot, because they start 10 seconds apart. - The Case fan is louder than the drives. - I also use 4 OLD Seagate Elite 5400 server drives in a SCSI3-UW striped RAID 0 - these ARE NOISY, and run hot. - They are in an external RAID Tower which uses two 4 inch case fans to fight the heat. Bear in mind that these drives are almost 8 years old... I bought them cheap as surplus from one of many failing Dot.coms - Now ask yourself how your system would run using the EIDE drives that were made 7 years ago. These SCSI drives (striped) have handled everything I have thrown at them.

BTW - I have a 5th Elite drive as a backup, and as a test installed W2K on it. - As a system drive it showed its age badly... but as a group sharing the load - THEY STILL ROCK!

Note: I have found that on my system the drive speed has not been an issue other than during live capture. - During a DivX encoding you have a steady stream in and a stream out. This results in very little random access seeks. Unless your drives are nearly full and in dire need of a good defrag your system will not need anywhere near the performance RAID offeres.

The Bottle neck I have found is that most the apps are not multi-threaded to utilize multi CPU's, instead they have been optimized for P4's running single. - Thats my next project, a dual XP or P4 system.

[FWMan]

I have good news for you guys

What about FireWire RAID? here is the set-up
Two 1394 PCI card - cost about $50.00.
Pls note: each PCI can connect 63 devices.
Internal FireWire convertors convert IDEs to FireWire drives.
Use Win2K, XP built-in RAID0.

I have a four bays tower, installed DVR-104, LiteON DVD-ROM1630 and two Maxtor 40GB HDD (set-up as A RAID).

I test my box with Intel 815, 845, 850 chipset using IOMeter
Read 70MB/sec sustain rate. CPU load 5% on my P3-500.
I can Rip DVD, BurnDVD and encode those VOBs same time.

Oh, BTW I can bring this box to any computer, which has Win2K, XP and 1394 port

Opppss sorry check this out
FireWire Internal Convert:
www.caloptic.com/fwint.html