SCSI 320

Soldato
Joined
6 May 2009
Posts
18,252
Looking at hard drive score results it shows SCSI 320 being highest on charts with things like new SATA 2 drives getting lower scores. Not sure about SSD drives.

Why dont people just find some old cheap 36GB SCSI disks, say 3 of them and stick them in RAID 5 and use this as a primary drive. Or is it because the RAID controller costs a load. Not sure what else is needed to run SCSI disks
 
Associate
Joined
17 Sep 2009
Posts
541
Location
UK
Yea i think it is the controller cards that make it quite unaffordable for most. Also spinning up at 15k they can be very noisy!
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2007
Posts
4,184
Well you need a board with PCI-X slots for the controller as PCI has little bandwidth, they're very loud, produce a lot of heat, slower on the desktop as they're optimised for lots of transactions.

Oh and the transfer rates are worse than the last few generations of 7200rpm disks. :) Newer SAS drives are quicker but cost more than faster SSD's.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
6 May 2009
Posts
18,252
Strange, yesterday I rebuilt a server with 3 disks from our old (2 weeks ago) domain controller. This is to try and get some tapes running from a backup drive. Came in this morning and one of the 3 SCSI disks has a nice orange light on it.
Good job it didnt do this 2 weeks ago!
 
Top Bottom