• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Raptor vs. SCSI

T

theseeker

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,245
I am just about to take the plunge for a Fujitsu 34G 15K SCSI for my boot drive. I have heard arguments for using 1SCSI and arguments for using 2 74G Raptors in RAID 0. Some say the RAID Raptors will be just as fast as the SCSI with less install, driver problems. Any thoughts or firsthand experience?
 
A) Make sure you get the MAU, the MAS is older and somewhat slower on the desktop.
B) RAID-0 is not going to save the Raptor from defeat when compared to the MAU. As a matter of fact, it won't raise performance much at all in most desktop tasks. According to SR, the MAU is at least 20% faster than the Raptor in all of their Desktop DriveMarks except High-End.
C) You must be prepared to address bus termination, add-in a SCSI HBA, and accept that a 15K drive will run hot and loud, be limited on capacity, and be very expensive for the capacity you do get.

You will compromise on ease of integration, along with cost and/or capacity, but you will also achieve better performance that you can get in any ATA setup if you go with one of the latest titans of 15K, the MAU and Maxtor's Atlas 15KII. Like it says in the Buyer's Guide, nothing else, not even other SCSI drives, come close.
 
...barring SSDs, which we should see in ever-increasing numbers ;)
 
DougLite said:
According to SR, the MAU is at least 20% faster than the Raptor in all of their Desktop DriveMarks except High-End.
Click to expand...
Don't forget SR used the 147GB version for their benchmarks, so wouldn't the performance for the 36GB drive be somewhat lower?

According to this, doubling the number of platters usually translates to a ~7% increase in performance.
The 147GB has 4 times as many platters so it should be about ~14% faster than the 36GB MAU.

You can see this to some extent when comparing the WD800JB and WD250JB. Keep in mind the 80GB uses 2 40GB platters compared to 3 83GB platters for the 250GB. Platter density has doubled, which should give us a ~10% increase and the number of platters has increased by 50%, so we'll say another ~3.5% there for a total of ~14%.

Looking at the numbers on the Head-To-Head Comparison, on Desktop/Workstation Suite 1.0, the WD2500JB averages out to about 14.39% faster, which is right on track with the prediction we made earlier.

Taking this into consideration, the 36GB MAU should only be about ~5% faster than the Raptor.
Factor in the higher cost of the MAU, and a SCSI controller card and you're looking at about a $100 premium over the Raptor.
Also consider the MAU has half the storage capacity and as DougLite mentioned, will be hotter and louder.
 
The MAU and Raptor are actually of the same areal density - 36GB platters, so they will be even there. However, as Ender points out, the 147GB unit that SR reviewed is four times bigger than the 36GB, so it will have shorter seeks and more data in the fastest outer zones of the disk, reducing the performance advantage if you do step down to the 36GB. However, the impact of this phenomenon is somewhat reduced by the locality phenomenon in desktop access patterns. This caveat should allow the MAU to remain at least 10% faster. Those 10% are pretty pricey - more than double the cost, plus the compromises on integration. Now you can see why I have always been so reluctant to recommend SCSI.

Actually, if you really wanna demolish the Raptor, take a 147GB 15K drive and short stroke it down to a 36GB - crazy expensive, but it completely eliminates the possibility of a full stroke seek occuring, and crams all of the data in the outermost quarter of the drive.
 
DougLite said:
Actually, if you really wanna demolish the Raptor, take a 147GB 15K drive and short stroke it down to a 36GB - crazy expensive, but it completely eliminates the possibility of a full stroke seek occuring, and crams all of the data in the outermost quarter of the drive.
Click to expand...
How exactly would you do that?
Personally, I'd like a couple of these in RAID0.
 
I would go ahead with the SCSI setup, I doubt you will regret it. Even the "older" Fujitsu MAS 15k drive bests the Raptor in all but the High-End DriveMark 2002 test. I have actually found SCSI easier to get windows installed on too. Windows XP has built in drivers for most of the popular U160 controllers which means I don't need a floppy drive to install. With many of the onboard SATA solutions I have worked with, they require me to specifiy third party drivers during XP install by loading them off a floppy disk.
 
In all honesty the 74 gb MAS3735 is not much slower then the 147 gb MAU3147. Check out this link:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200411/20041123MAU3147NP_1.html

The MAS3735 was held up against the MAU in all the tests. The best thing is i just bought me a MAS3735. I paid $304 shipped for it, not a bad deal, oh and i already had the rest of the equipment.

if you want SCSI but money is a concern go for the MAS3735, if money is no object get the MAU3147.
 
The MAU is at least 100 I/Os/sec ahead of the MAS in all of the Desktop DriveMarks. That is a huge advantage, and nothing to be sneezed at. Gains like that don't occur just every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top