just wanted to know cause i have and needed some help but there was little out there! i also would like to know if there is anyone out there who has upgraded there system or like me several times, and felt well rather not that impressed, like one time you had a system running really, really sweet and you upgraded. then you felt robbed! I had a system it was socket A 2.8 Athlon with 512 or 1gb ram and a scsi card like 80mb and a drive was 15k 18gb fujitsu and i always was impressed and just never really got that satisfaction again, maybe i am a way off on one please dont slate me if i am. But can anyone relate to this if you do please give me a big shout up!
Does anyone have a SCSI setup
- Thread starter Daxio
- Start date
Yeah I was the same. Back in the day when I had my athlon xp 2000 I bought a 39160 and also had a 15k drive by fuji. My computer was stupendously fast, scsi really does make a massive difference. I might have to get a SAS setup when I switch to core 2 duo.
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
He got SCSI drives a while back, in the Socket A days of yore. He was impressed with the speed. Upon upgrading, he is not so impressed with their quickness in combination with newer hardware.
When I went from my XP25 to winchester 3200, I was utterly blown away by the lack of speed.
To be fair however, I had been running at 2.6 and now I had gone to stock, however, I was expecting so much more.
Worst one was fairly recently, I got myself a P4 3.6 and while the CPU is certainly a fast bugger, the whole PC as a complete item, was compleyely unimpressive. I bought a new GFX, and upped it to 2GB as well as gave it an 80GB Hitachi SATA as these are supposed to be quick and the PC was still a pile of crud.
That was supposed to replace my Newcastle3000 ( @ 2.4Ghz ) but to be honest, it didnt beat on the CPU and the whole system seemed to be choked by something that I am assuming is simply the Motherboard being awful.
I was so unimpressed that I have it plonked as a seat for my daughter when she plays on her PC ( AMD of course )
To be fair however, I had been running at 2.6 and now I had gone to stock, however, I was expecting so much more.
Worst one was fairly recently, I got myself a P4 3.6 and while the CPU is certainly a fast bugger, the whole PC as a complete item, was compleyely unimpressive. I bought a new GFX, and upped it to 2GB as well as gave it an 80GB Hitachi SATA as these are supposed to be quick and the PC was still a pile of crud.
That was supposed to replace my Newcastle3000 ( @ 2.4Ghz ) but to be honest, it didnt beat on the CPU and the whole system seemed to be choked by something that I am assuming is simply the Motherboard being awful.
I was so unimpressed that I have it plonked as a seat for my daughter when she plays on her PC ( AMD of course )
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 102
Yes I have a U320 15k SCSI setup on my downloader/media server.
It's extremly quick and I would never sell my 15k Maxtor Atlas II's, I can extract a 4.36Gb ISO in just over 60 seconds
And can transfer the same ISO across my Gigabit network @ 40,000 KB/s (only limited by the speed of my 10k Raptor on this rig)
U320 SCSI rocks
Obviously your going to notice a difference in windows when using a Hd with a random access of <3.0ms, if you cannot then something is wrong with your setup
It's extremly quick and I would never sell my 15k Maxtor Atlas II's, I can extract a 4.36Gb ISO in just over 60 seconds
And can transfer the same ISO across my Gigabit network @ 40,000 KB/s (only limited by the speed of my 10k Raptor on this rig)U320 SCSI rocks
Obviously your going to notice a difference in windows when using a Hd with a random access of <3.0ms, if you cannot then something is wrong with your setup
Nahema said:
Yes i agree with nearly everybody especially fATRAKOON (fATRAKOONS post made me laugh)i dont agree with basmic i know when and how to use my PC thank you very much and i have been using one for sometime, for various tasks!! I think we all can agree that sometimes we just no something is really sharp on everyday to day use I had a very simalar setup to you Nahema and it rocked, its a very sad day when you keep launching money at something and the thing still is a pile of crap! i must admit however i have this setup and its working very well, but feel there could be room for improvement (like another gig of ram) but its so pains me to do that. i would hate to turn it in to a seat!
THese are now raided ultra 320's and works well i did raid SATA 10k western digital and i am sorry they just didnt do it for me! i have a Gigabyte board with 2 sticks of kingston with heatspreaders so i guess they will take a we biit over clocking! so i might get on that and use guys can help me out when i get about 50 BSD
Xtreme can you say rip a certain file and tell me and we could like compare, cause i wanna test the crap out of these but would like another setup to compare with. we could be all brovado and like mine is better and yours and stuff LOL
Sorry, but SCSI is mostly used for fileservers. Even then, they are starting to turn to SATA drive because of the priceerformance ratio gap narrowing between SATA and SCSI drives.
SCSI is ideal for rock-solid backups, with a true need for speed - ie: continuous data access, or databases.
SCSI is not ideal for the oddball gamer, who may feel that a SCSI setup will decrease their Windows load time by 30 seconds, or decrease their load time into Counter Strike by 0.000000001 seconds.
Could you give us your reasons, as to why you feel you should SCSI drives? What do you use your computer for, and how frequently?
erformance ratio gap narrowing between SATA and SCSI drives.SCSI is ideal for rock-solid backups, with a true need for speed - ie: continuous data access, or databases.
SCSI is not ideal for the oddball gamer, who may feel that a SCSI setup will decrease their Windows load time by 30 seconds, or decrease their load time into Counter Strike by 0.000000001 seconds.
Could you give us your reasons, as to why you feel you should SCSI drives? What do you use your computer for, and how frequently?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 8,215
- Location
- North East
basmic said:Sorry, but SCSI is mostly used for fileservers. Even then, they are starting to turn to SATA drive because of the price
SCSI is ideal for rock-solid backups, with a true need for speed - ie: continuous data access, or databases.
SCSI is not ideal for the oddball gamer, who may feel that a SCSI setup will decrease their Windows load time by 30 seconds, or decrease their load time into Counter Strike by 0.000000001 seconds.
Could you give us your reasons, as to why you feel you should SCSI drives? What do you use your computer for, and how frequently?
people say that about RAID0 ... but i notice a difference... each to their own i guess
I ahve found that when I have played with RAID on my PCs, I get performance increases ranging from a tiny bit quicker, to almost double the speed ( Never actually hitting 2x though! ) and even a badly setup RAID can actually be slower too!
Different hardware, using different drives yields completely different results.
So, on that note, you must also appreciate, that just because one person has a Raid setup, does not actually mean that their setup will be faster than another persons single drive setup... It may actually be slower!
Unfortunately I dont have a good SCSI setup... I decided a whiel back that because IDE was getting there, and the price on SCSI still being kept artificially high, the speed difference was just no longer justified. So, my SCSI stuff is still 10K and I have one 15K drive... Oh, the 15K drive is leagues ahead of the 10K one and so, thats obviously only ever used as C: and the 10K ones are striped to help those along, but to be honest, there is very little noticeable difference between the SCSI setup and my Raptor 36GBs... Never benched them against each other but if there is all that much difference, its not obvious.
Even Raptors are no longer doing it for me either... I got a Seagate 80GB SAT Adrive a while back and I found that for a lot of thigns, it was faster than the raptors, so I thought why bother with a new raptor also?
OH, and FYI, when I wasted money on buying 2GB, I have now had chance to play about and I have compared 1GB vs 2GB on 2 of my systems...
PC1 = Neo4 / x2 4400 / x800@x850 PCIE
PC2 = Neo2 / Venice @ 2.6 / Rad9800Pro AGP
And I can honestly say without fear of correction, that I can only find 2 reasons to bother with 2GB over 1GB...
Doom 3 and Quake 4 - Setting the Retails to ultra!
It says it needs and extra 500MB texture memory.
Other than that, its a waste of time.
This is like *** time I was running a 9500np @ 9700 and UT2K4 was glitching occasionally, so, I upped to a 9700Pro.
Its still glitched and I ended up chucking 1GB at it instead of its 512MB and found that 9500 & 1GB plays some games a lot better than a 9700Pro & 512MB.
Hell, 2 of my LAN PCs only use MX440 Cards and they play UT2K4 just fine cos they got 1GB in them... Swap the RAM for a better card and they stop playing ball.
Ah its all fun isnt it?
Different hardware, using different drives yields completely different results.
So, on that note, you must also appreciate, that just because one person has a Raid setup, does not actually mean that their setup will be faster than another persons single drive setup... It may actually be slower!
Unfortunately I dont have a good SCSI setup... I decided a whiel back that because IDE was getting there, and the price on SCSI still being kept artificially high, the speed difference was just no longer justified. So, my SCSI stuff is still 10K and I have one 15K drive... Oh, the 15K drive is leagues ahead of the 10K one and so, thats obviously only ever used as C: and the 10K ones are striped to help those along, but to be honest, there is very little noticeable difference between the SCSI setup and my Raptor 36GBs... Never benched them against each other but if there is all that much difference, its not obvious.
Even Raptors are no longer doing it for me either... I got a Seagate 80GB SAT Adrive a while back and I found that for a lot of thigns, it was faster than the raptors, so I thought why bother with a new raptor also?
OH, and FYI, when I wasted money on buying 2GB, I have now had chance to play about and I have compared 1GB vs 2GB on 2 of my systems...
PC1 = Neo4 / x2 4400 / x800@x850 PCIE
PC2 = Neo2 / Venice @ 2.6 / Rad9800Pro AGP
And I can honestly say without fear of correction, that I can only find 2 reasons to bother with 2GB over 1GB...
Doom 3 and Quake 4 - Setting the Retails to ultra!
It says it needs and extra 500MB texture memory.
Other than that, its a waste of time.
This is like *** time I was running a 9500np @ 9700 and UT2K4 was glitching occasionally, so, I upped to a 9700Pro.
Its still glitched and I ended up chucking 1GB at it instead of its 512MB and found that 9500 & 1GB plays some games a lot better than a 9700Pro & 512MB.
Hell, 2 of my LAN PCs only use MX440 Cards and they play UT2K4 just fine cos they got 1GB in them... Swap the RAM for a better card and they stop playing ball.
Ah its all fun isnt it?
daz said:You can probably do RAID 0 with Raptors for the same price as going all out SCSI... fast disk performance is always nice.
Or, RAID 0 with U320 SCSI for unbeatable performance. Its very fast. And I find the Maxtor Atlas 15K'ers are a tadge noisey, but hay, XP64 loads so quick.
Now and again I disable the SCSI just to enjoy the difference between an IDE 80gb and a SATA 300gb compaired to SCSI.
I used to have a SCSI rig, years ago (only because at the time I was working at Fujitsu and picked up the drives cheaply)
As Basmic said, for home use there is no real point. It'll cost you a lot more for a decent SCSI setup than for a SATA for very little performance benefit (Though with SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) you probably would notice a difference I wouldn't bother.
Basically for a home setup there is no way the costs can be justified, you'd be far better off saving your money for improving other areas of your PC (if you're a gamer then your graphics card for example)
As Basmic said, for home use there is no real point. It'll cost you a lot more for a decent SCSI setup than for a SATA for very little performance benefit (Though with SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) you probably would notice a difference I wouldn't bother.
Basically for a home setup there is no way the costs can be justified, you'd be far better off saving your money for improving other areas of your PC (if you're a gamer then your graphics card for example)
IT systems admin by profession....
The company that I'm currently contracting for.... their main fileserver is the following....
Quad P4 xeons.....
4GB RAM (needs 8).....
4 port gigabit NIC....
gigabit fiber HBA linked to an aray of 14 15K u320 drives + redundant PSUs + 2 management cards....
suffice it to say.... it goes very very fast..... it should do for what it cost them....
For home users it depends on what your willing to spend.... BUT! your starting to get solid state drives and hybrid drives coming out.... they might not be big but they goin to get fast...
For me, for my gaming PC I'm running a 10K 80gb sata for operating systems (XP, Vista RC2, LFS (linux)) and a pair of U133 10K IDE drives stripped for my games drive....
For me the above is pritty darn quick.... and it'll do me for now....
The company that I'm currently contracting for.... their main fileserver is the following....
Quad P4 xeons.....
4GB RAM (needs 8).....
4 port gigabit NIC....
gigabit fiber HBA linked to an aray of 14 15K u320 drives + redundant PSUs + 2 management cards....
suffice it to say.... it goes very very fast..... it should do for what it cost them....
For home users it depends on what your willing to spend.... BUT! your starting to get solid state drives and hybrid drives coming out.... they might not be big but they goin to get fast...
For me, for my gaming PC I'm running a 10K 80gb sata for operating systems (XP, Vista RC2, LFS (linux)) and a pair of U133 10K IDE drives stripped for my games drive....
For me the above is pritty darn quick.... and it'll do me for now....
basmic said:Sorry, but SCSI is mostly used for fileservers. Even then, they are starting to turn to SATA drive because of the price
SCSI is ideal for rock-solid backups, with a true need for speed - ie: continuous data access, or databases.
SCSI is not ideal for the oddball gamer, who may feel that a SCSI setup will decrease their Windows load time by 30 seconds, or decrease their load time into Counter Strike by 0.000000001 seconds.
Could you give us your reasons, as to why you feel you should SCSI drives? What do you use your computer for, and how frequently?
Solid backups? i think your talking about raid 1 or raid 5 (with parity)etc for backing up, and isnt continuous-faster data what it is all about? who cares bout load times its when it is going is what it is about! and again counter strike as rakoon says no two setups on scsi are the same so where do you draw this figure from? why SCSI - I would have to agree mainstream highend servers cost the earth and well when you see them and work with them you see why, there SATA counter parts are cost effective, but just dont cut it, and why not migrate SCSI setup to desktop form, if you can do it go for it. i think everyone on overclockers wants to do something a little nuts and like put a goldfish in a PC why not!
I own a local computer hardware store and we roll out small to medium networks as well as a retail side, obviously my home pc is just a toy for me and to tell you the truth i dont do much on it, but when i do, i expect performance, wether it be some rendering for my home video collection, I also have a Mac, or i want to rip something from AVI or alternativly down to AVI i want performance, I have had this discussion on this forum before and didnt want to go down the line of a SCSi SATA performance debate, cause there is no contest, i wanted to know about older setups and improved performance via lots of all our hard earned cash and upgrades cause lately i have been feeling disillusioned, and thanks for the heads up on another wadge of my cash going for another 1gb rAM lol. but i might just put it in anyway cause i gotta!
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 99
daz said:You can probably do RAID 0 with Raptors for the same price as going all out SCSI... fast disk performance is always nice.
thats what i use and its very fast
Daxio said:
If you gotta, then you gotta
I am only saying that for the average joe ( Thats 90% of us I recon ) then 2GB from 1GB simply isnt going to do jack... I myself found that 2GB was no different with 2K, XPHome, Pro, or XP64 over 1GB in *** same setup.
The only thign it did help was ultra quality graphics in Doom3 & Quake 4, but apart from that, nothing.
Now, if you are rendering / encoding etc, then perhaps you iwll see that extra little bit, and to be fair, I have not yet given any kind of head to on Video encoding with 1GB vs 2GB so maybe I will.
I found I was a bit better off having the 1GB Corsair, and running the RAM & CPU both at 270FSB than having 2GB and keeping the RAM below 200FSB
I dont have 4 sticks of the same RAM thats above DDR400 in case you are wondering, but I have lots of pairs that are 4400+
well i have bought in the past SCSI 15k drives bought for 80 quid (the pair) and SCSI adaptec new with ones years warranty for £84 these prices are including vat and including carraige and i have raided WD raptors and found them noisy and clunky and sorry scsi wins!! but like ive said i dont wanna go into a debate bout scsi sata but its going down that road. im sortof happy with this system now i will maybe tweak the ram up and cpu I have a 3800 Dual core AMD of course so it might take a we bit of clocking!!!LetsHaveIt said:thats what i use and its very fast
yoda said:
As a matter of interest what size of network is the fileserver serving? and what size are the proccessors and what size are the drives (i am getting a little bit of wood here LOL) sorry to bring the level of convo into the gutter there!