IDE drives... RUNNING ON SCSI Adapters!
Quote: Courtesy of Tom's Hardware Pages! * (An interesting read for those interested in modern Harddrive technologies & breakthrus. . . ) APK Yeah, they're saying that it doesn't work well. . . And ya really had me going there I have a Dual PII 300 with FW SCSI and 512mb.
Quote: http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030130/index.html
Courtesy of Tom's Hardware Pages!
*
(An interesting read for those interested in modern Harddrive technologies & breakthrus...)
APK
Yeah, they're saying that it doesn't work well... And ya really had me going there I have a Dual PII 300 with FW SCSI and 512mb. It can still haul W2K along at a pretty good clip in large part because of the SCSI. I miss that enough on my new system, that I've started thinking about adding a SCSI board.... ;( ...Humm...SCSI :x
Courtesy of Tom's Hardware Pages!
*
(An interesting read for those interested in modern Harddrive technologies & breakthrus...)
APK
Yeah, they're saying that it doesn't work well... And ya really had me going there I have a Dual PII 300 with FW SCSI and 512mb. It can still haul W2K along at a pretty good clip in large part because of the SCSI. I miss that enough on my new system, that I've started thinking about adding a SCSI board.... ;( ...Humm...SCSI :x
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Quote:
(I could be wrong, but for some reason that point sticks out in my mind here... something I read over time etc.)
As far as I know, the only difference between SCSI and IDE is the more complicated (smarter) electronics in the SCSI. This is pretty much BS about better quality components. Remember that it cost more to do it differently.
Quote:
I plan to EVENTUALLY nab a Seagate Cheetah X15 15000rpm 18gb UltraScSi-160 disk to make as my main booting disk that I put the OS & programs on, with a TekRam DC-390 UltraScSi-160 controller...
COSTS are the downside, of course!
Got that right!
I don't know if you remember but back in the 486 era Promise technologies used to put out a Caching IDE controller. Hottest thing you ever saw & great for CAD apps. I've always wondered why the stopped making those. Apparently there was some problem / incompatibility with IDE 100 & 133. I've always wanted to see that back
(I could be wrong, but for some reason that point sticks out in my mind here... something I read over time etc.)
As far as I know, the only difference between SCSI and IDE is the more complicated (smarter) electronics in the SCSI. This is pretty much BS about better quality components. Remember that it cost more to do it differently.
Quote:
I plan to EVENTUALLY nab a Seagate Cheetah X15 15000rpm 18gb UltraScSi-160 disk to make as my main booting disk that I put the OS & programs on, with a TekRam DC-390 UltraScSi-160 controller...
COSTS are the downside, of course!
Got that right!
I don't know if you remember but back in the 486 era Promise technologies used to put out a Caching IDE controller. Hottest thing you ever saw & great for CAD apps. I've always wondered why the stopped making those. Apparently there was some problem / incompatibility with IDE 100 & 133. I've always wanted to see that back
Quote:
Yup, right in the controllers themselves...
See, I read recently that SCSI stuff is designed for WAY longer "continuous operations" in that page as a matter of fact!
Now, that seemed to contradict what I read in the past the essentially the drives platters are the same, bearings & all, as well as the actuator arms & read/write heads...
That sort of had me wondering... things CAN & DO change alot in this field over time, & what I read about them being pretty much mechanically the same for the most part (like drive bearings on the spindle etc.) could be wrong nowadays.
There's a trickle down effect from SCSI to IDE. Things like the fluid bearing are in that category. You must remember that first line SCSIs are spinning at twice the rate of a good IDE, so, in that respect the SCSIs are built 'better' than their IDE counterparts, but, a lot of it is just using older technology for the IDE disks. Eventually we see the same things go to IDE. I can't believe that their is much difference in the QC or any difference in the clean rooms. Still, all of us will agree that SCSI is the good stuff.
Quote:
Yes, I agree... I had one in "those old days":
A TekRam DC-600 ISA slot IDE Caching Controller with 4mb of 30-pin FastPage RAM I had added to it... & it was awesome!
(With it my old WD 212mb Caviar IDE disks outran even Vesa Local Bus controlled drives with their wider TRUE local bus (moreso than PCI, VESA was supposedly a truer implementation of a real "local bus", another factoid hanging around here in memory)).
I too, wish such things were still made for IDE/EIDE to be honest, it did make a diff. in the DOS/Win3.x 486 & early Pentium I days for disk performance!
*
APK
Actually I have one of the promise ones (8mb) in a 486-50 that I'm setting up as a pure dos box ... fooling with DR DOS and such .
Yup, right in the controllers themselves...
See, I read recently that SCSI stuff is designed for WAY longer "continuous operations" in that page as a matter of fact!
Now, that seemed to contradict what I read in the past the essentially the drives platters are the same, bearings & all, as well as the actuator arms & read/write heads...
That sort of had me wondering... things CAN & DO change alot in this field over time, & what I read about them being pretty much mechanically the same for the most part (like drive bearings on the spindle etc.) could be wrong nowadays.
There's a trickle down effect from SCSI to IDE. Things like the fluid bearing are in that category. You must remember that first line SCSIs are spinning at twice the rate of a good IDE, so, in that respect the SCSIs are built 'better' than their IDE counterparts, but, a lot of it is just using older technology for the IDE disks. Eventually we see the same things go to IDE. I can't believe that their is much difference in the QC or any difference in the clean rooms. Still, all of us will agree that SCSI is the good stuff.
Quote:
Yes, I agree... I had one in "those old days":
A TekRam DC-600 ISA slot IDE Caching Controller with 4mb of 30-pin FastPage RAM I had added to it... & it was awesome!
(With it my old WD 212mb Caviar IDE disks outran even Vesa Local Bus controlled drives with their wider TRUE local bus (moreso than PCI, VESA was supposedly a truer implementation of a real "local bus", another factoid hanging around here in memory)).
I too, wish such things were still made for IDE/EIDE to be honest, it did make a diff. in the DOS/Win3.x 486 & early Pentium I days for disk performance!
*
APK
Actually I have one of the promise ones (8mb) in a 486-50 that I'm setting up as a pure dos box ... fooling with DR DOS and such .
what about those western D's that run @ 10,000rpm IDE drives - they were comparing them to scsi drives and in some tests, out performed them i think.
it was a review on tom's site a while back.
Western Digital WD1200JB With 8 MB Cache:
Outperforms SCSI Drives
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20020305/index.html
it was a review on tom's site a while back.
Western Digital WD1200JB With 8 MB Cache:
Outperforms SCSI Drives
http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20020305/index.html
IDE in single drive situations at times outdoes the scsi counterpart but when put under stress the SCSI wins hands down because of the complexity of the interface
Thats one way of putting it ValkyerieK7. In a mulitple drive system with lots of drive access, SCSI still owns IDE by a wide margin. If doing Pro audio recording, the ability to record 16 tracks to 8 seperate HD's easily, is an accomplishment few IDE system will do. Under any kind of complex IO operation, SCSI will show its strengths.
I've got both, Fast SCSI drives and "Western Digital WD1200JB With 8 MB". And in the real world, Even just 10,000 rpm SCSI outperform the proud WD.
I've got both, Fast SCSI drives and "Western Digital WD1200JB With 8 MB". And in the real world, Even just 10,000 rpm SCSI outperform the proud WD.
