Which would be faster IDE vs. SCSI

[acascianelli]

7200rpm 8mb ATA/100

or

10000rpm 80mbit SCSI

I'm building a PC for a friend from scraps from work and I don't have any IDE drives, just SCSI. I figured it would be about the same but the 10k drive would have a much faster response time.

[daedal]

7200rpm 8mb ATA/100

or

10000rpm 80mbit SCSI

I'm building a PC for a friend from scraps from work and I don't have any IDE drives, just SCSI. I figured it would be about the same but the 10k drive would have a much faster response time. Don't SCSI drives have an issue with Windows XP? Can't recall exactly but I read that they ran at half speed under XP. Don't quote me on that though.. I'm not 100% sure.

[cell_491]

7200rpm 8mb ATA/100

or

10000rpm 80mbit SCSI

I'm building a PC for a friend from scraps from work and I don't have any IDE drives, just SCSI. I figured it would be about the same but the 10k drive would have a much faster response time.
scsi should be faster because it offloads alot of work onto a dedicated processor built onto the hdd (im not totally sure how it works) and it also has a much higher spindle speed so it should scream

[defakto]

It's going to depend on what generation drive you're talking about. The scsi will handle high loads much better than the ide will. But alot of newer ide/sata drives come closer to the 10k performance rates for older scsi drives.

[neo86]

You need to tell exactly what model each hard drive is.

edit - If you're sure it's 80 mbit SCSI and my math is right that only tops out at 80*10^6/8/1024/1024=9.5 Mbytes/s.

edit2 - Windows has no issues with SCSI as long you update to the latest service pack.

edit3 - Depending on which SCSI card you get it could possibly off load all work to the PCI card.

[dlion]

80mbit 10k rpm drive? what drive are you talking about specifically? Any 10k rpm scsi drive should be u160 or u320, which is not 80mbit/sec.... maybe you mean 80pin?

[Vertigo Acid]

No?
I have drives lying around that are 10K Ultra2 SCSI, ST39102LW, for example. And I know that wasn't the first 10K SCSI drive either

[acascianelli]

The drive is capable of U160, but I'm not putting a controller that does 160 in this system.

[Dark Ember]

Don't SCSI drives have an issue with Windows XP? Can't recall exactly but I read that they ran at half speed under XP. Don't quote me on that though.. I'm not 100% sure.


There used to be a problem with XP, and 2k with SP2 and SP3. Its fixed in the latest service packs for both though. :)

[jack1201]

I think SCSI is faster.

[DougLite]

I think SCSI is faster.:rolleyes: Why must this persist? Clicky (http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/compare_rtg_2001.php?typeID=10&testbedID=3&osID=4&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=198&devID_1=40&devID_2=250&devCnt=3) shows the Hitachi 7K250, a pretty old 7200RPM drive, outperforming two U160 SCSI disks pretty much across the board in SR's single user suite. The fact that the 7200RPM runs much cooler and quieter and has much more capacity is simply icing on the cake. The 7K250's (or any halfway current 7200RPM drive's) lead over an Ultra2 drive will be even wider.

If he has the SCSI disks sitting in a drawer and would have to buy an ATA drive, then using the SCSI drives would make sense. Having a <6ms seek time on a piece of paper does not make a drive fast, especially on the desktop. The buffer size and strategy has to be there, and it simply isn't on ancient SCSI drives.

[neo86]

Dude, if you want a legitimate answer you need to tell the exact model of each drive. :rolleyes: