Building a new system: SCSI or IDE?

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:29:51 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Simon wrote in message
...

50Gb $45US - Lousy value?

Pity about the price of IDE, salesfool.

And you, I suppose, are one of the foremost names in mathematical
physics?

Its where you shop

Usual salesfool liar.

Why don't you tell your uncle again how you proved that
defragmentation was useless, dear? I'm sure he will be /very/
interested.

You obviously flogged used cars previously.

And you rather obviously do that now.

Josh

"Bob WIllard" wrote in message ...
Rod Speed wrote:
Bob WIllard wrote in message ...

Rod Speed wrote:


Even SCSI doesnt allow the use of all 4 drives simultaneously anyway.

Mindless hairsplitting. Of course it doesn't, on the bus that is.
But that is not the point. Point is that they can be set to work simulta-
niously and split the available bandwidth between them, using that bus.



Sure it does. SCSI allows all drives to be used simultaneously;

Of course it does. But so does ATA.



Wrong. You cant simultaneously transfer data from all
drives literally simultaneously, there is still only one bus.

Gee, you don't say.


What SCSI can do is use the bus for another drive when
one of them is seeking etc. Thats not the same thing as
simultaneous data transfer from all drives at once.

Mindlessly superficial.
That never happens on a computer as it too works in a serial fashion.


up to 7 HDs on a narrow bus and up to 15 HDs on a wide bus.
E.g., SCSI allows the initiator (the Host Adapter) to issue a
read command to each target (HD) and then disconnect from
the SCSI bus; each HD may then, concurrently, do the seek,
then read data from the platter into its buffer, and reconnect
only when it is ready to copy data into host RAM.


Yes, but that is NOT simultaneous data transfer.

Of course it is, in a multiuser/multitasking environment.



This capability is one reason why it makes sense to use
a 320 MB/s (U320) version of SCSI to attach HDs which
have STRs of less than a quarter of the bus data rate.

And why ATA uses 133 MB/s to attach HDs which
have STRs of less than half of the bus data rate.



Separate issue entirely.

Nope. Totally to the point.



Moreover, with command queuing, a bunch of read commands can
be issued to each HD, and each HD can execute them out-of-order
and briefly re-occupy the SCSI bus to do the actual data transfer.


Separate issue entirely.

Nope.

And command queuing isnt just available with SCSI anyway.

Nor is disconnect/reconnect, known as "command overlap" in ATA,
without which Queueing in ATA would not even be possible, obviously.



And yes, it works the same way for writes
and for mixtures of reads and writes.


Sure, but you never get simultaneous data transfer from
multiple drives, they still have to do that sequentially.

Gee, how it suddenly forgets that in the next line


IDE is actually better with the usual 2 controllers in that respect.

They don't transfer at the exact same moment either as the PCI bus
handles them in a serial fashion.



I am not claiming that WinWhatever takes full advantage of the
capabilities of SCSI, but there are grown-up OSs which do.


No OS can achieve simultaneous data transfer
with multiple SCSI drives on a single bus.

Nor if they were on seperate buses.

All controllers at some point sit on a single bus.
No OS can achieve simultaneous data transfer, period.
When 'simultanious' is used, 'virtually simultanious' is meant.





Take two Tums and call me in the morning, Rod.

The fact that you did not really disagree

Just the usual mindless silly stuff that it always spouts.

with anything I wrote only shows that both you and I know how the
traditional SCSI bus works.

How any bus works.

--
Cheers, Bob

.... or the beta versus vhs tape format debate. Beta was considered better,
but vhs is still here.

"Gareth Church" wrote in message
...
"Simon" wrote in message
...
A quick analogy for you:

IDE 4 cylinder. SCSI V8.

A quick analogy, and a worthless one (like most are). I've heard the same
analogy used in the Mac vs PC debate. It's says nothing. It's the sort of
thing people say when they have a strong opinion, but can't come up with
any
actual reason why they feel the way they do.

They both do the same job, but you know that the SCSI will go on for
ever,
and not wear itself out.

Your hyperbole aside, I do agree that on the whole SCSI is more reliable
than IDE.

Really, if that is your opinion why didn't you just say it? The analogy
was
dumb, and isn't analogous at all. The difference between a 4 cylinder
engine
and a V8 isn't how long they last, it's power. If you want to find
something
analogous to that in the hard drive world (which is a pointless thing to
do), it would be sustained transfer rate, not reliability.

Gareth

Some silly little pathological liar claiming to be
Joshua P. Hill desperately
attempted to bull**** its way out of its predicament in message
...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

Bob WIllard wrote
in message ...
Rod Speed wrote
Bob WIllard wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

Even SCSI doesnt allow the use of all 4 drives simultaneously anyway.


Sure it does. SCSI allows all drives to be used simultaneously;


Wrong. You cant simultaneously transfer data from all
drives literally simultaneously, there is still only one bus.

What SCSI can do is use the bus for another drive when
one of them is seeking etc. Thats not the same thing as
simultaneous data transfer from all drives at once.


up to 7 HDs on a narrow bus and up to 15 HDs on a wide bus.
E.g., SCSI allows the initiator (the Host Adapter) to issue a
read command to each target (HD) and then disconnect from
the SCSI bus; each HD may then, concurrently, do the seek,
then read data from the platter into its buffer, and reconnect
only when it is ready to copy data into host RAM.


Yes, but that is NOT simultaneous data transfer.


This capability is one reason why it makes sense to use
a 320 MB/s (U320) version of SCSI to attach HDs which
have STRs of less than a quarter of the bus data rate.


Separate issue entirely.


Moreover, with command queuing, a bunch of read commands can
be issued to each HD, and each HD can execute them out-of-order
and briefly re-occupy the SCSI bus to do the actual data transfer.


Separate issue entirely. And command queuing
isnt just available with SCSI anyway.


And yes, it works the same way for writes
and for mixtures of reads and writes.


Sure, but you never get simultaneous data transfer from
multiple drives, they still have to do that sequentially.

IDE is actually better with the usual 2 controllers in that respect.


I am not claiming that WinWhatever takes full advantage of the
capabilities of SCSI, but there are grown-up OSs which do.


No OS can achieve simultaneous data transfer
with multiple SCSI drives on a single bus.

Take two Tums and call me in the morning, Rod.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

The fact that you did not really disagree with anything I wrote

More of your lies.

only shows that both you and I know
how the traditional SCSI bus works.

Pity you made such a spectacular fool
of yourself with your original silly claim.

The ONLY thing that works in that particular situation
is to keep your silly trap shut and hope everyone
forgets about your stupidity as quickly as possible.

Some silly little pathological liar claiming to be
Joshua P. Hill desperately
attempted to bull**** its way out of its predicament in message
...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

If you plan on no more than 4 HDs, look at the Antec Sonata Quiet Case
with rubber isolation mounts for HDs.

Regards
John Yuen

Jonathan Sachs wrote:

Lifelong US Citizen wrote:

And modern SCSI drives are very quite also.

Can you provide specifics?

I'm currently using two 36 GB Ultra160 drives from Seagate. One is
about a year old, the other, probably three years old. I believe their
idle noise level was rated around 3.4 bels, and I don't know of any.
standard SCSI drives which are much quieter than that. I find the
noise very bothersome.

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

Some pathetic excuse for a troll claiming to be
Folkert Rienstra
mindlessly trolled away like mad in message
...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

I'm running XP Pro, SP-1. The performance is excellent, and I have used a
Quantum 10K SCSI LVD drive in the past. Like many, when I "upgraded" from
Win 2000 to XP, the performance of my SCSI drive went to hell. The drivers
for the Adaptec 19160 board never materialized (they may have since then),
so I switched to other solutions. I'll run any disk performance tests you'd
like, and post the results. Let me know which measuring tool is best.

"Paul Gunson" wrote in message
...
Bowser wrote:

Consider a Serial ATA single drive or RAID solution. If you're running
truly
disk intensive applications, a SATA RAID 0 array will work wonders.
Cards
are cheap enough, and the drives aren't bad, either. I'm running two WD
Raptors, and the performance is amazing.


out of curiousty what OS r u running....? if XP did u have the issue
with slow performance for SCSI or RAID controllers...? i hear that any
RAID card will suffer from the same performance prob as SCSI - i
understand the prob can be fixed by converting to dynamic disks but
curious if it was an issue with ur setup

cheers

Thanks you so much for assuming I work for a storage company. I don't. I
mentioned the drives so readers would have a frame of reference. I mentioned
my opinion of their performance. Check any of the techie sites and see if
I'm lying, or if this is hype. I suppose you can prove that the RAID 0 array
I'm running isn't faster than a single drive solution?

Please do me a favor, and drop dead.

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
And what storage company do you work for? Pure hype from absolute morons.

"Bowser" wrote in message
. net...
| Consider a Serial ATA single drive or RAID solution. If you're running
truly
| disk intensive applications, a SATA RAID 0 array will work wonders.
Cards
| are cheap enough, and the drives aren't bad, either. I'm running two WD
| Raptors, and the performance is amazing.
|