> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Kersenbrock
<snip>
> P.S - Magazines like P.C. Magazine has done benchmarking of
> servers using IDE vs
> SCSI disks, and I recall their conclusions to be that they
> were very surprised to
> find that it didn't make much difference in the actual
> system performance.
As a newbie to the list, this is my first post but maybe I can add some
first hand experience and opinions to this debate...
The system I run is as follows:
The motherboard is dual PIII with built in U2W SCSI and RAID port. The RAID
port is populated with an Adaptec ARO1130U2 RAID card on which hang two IBM
Ultrastar 18ES 7200rpm 18GB drives running a RAID0 (striped, no parity)
array. This array forms the basis of my main system drives and additionally,
I have a ~30GB UDMA33 7200rpm IDE drive which I use as a dumping ground for
files I only need to use once in a blue moon. The OS is NT4.0.
Some example timings:
Saving a 50MB cpt file to the SCSI drives takes about 5 seconds and to the
IDE drive, about 10 seconds.
Reading a 50MB cpt file from SCSI and IDE takes about 1 or 2 seconds.
Clearly, writing to SCSI outperforms IDE and has the added advantage in that
the error correction is better as the RAID controller error correction is
better than a standalone drive (I should also point out that the IDE channel
is dedicated to the harddrive - if you have another IDE drive on the same
channel which is being accessed, the IDE timings will get a lot worse).
You pays your money and makes your choice. I would always go for SCSI if the
budget allows - but IDE offers way more space for your money.
Don't know if that helped or not!
Mark
