>> I am not an expert, but I don't believe any external USB hard drive would
be faster than an internal drive - I believe the internal drive would be
significantly faster.<<
Even though USB 2.0 promises very fast speeds, chances are that the USB
external drive is an internal IDE drive in a box wi
I have a USB 2.0 Buslink hard drive, and although the drive's internal speed
is faster than my internal EIDE drive (7200RPM vs 5200RPM, or thereabouts),
in action it is only about half as fast, according to my CD writing
software's data transfer tests. Although USB 2.0 is far faster than 1.1, it
i
CTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Moreno Polloni
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed
>> I am not an expert, but I don't believe any external USB hard drive would
be faster than an internal drive
>>I understand, also, that RPM is more important that which version ATA your
internal drives are. That is to say ATA66 (if you don't have ATA100) is
probably fine with a 7200 RPM drive, because the disk is more likely to be
the bottleneck than the interface.<<
It depends on a few factors, but bas
>>SCSI hard disk drives is the answer.
Faster than any IDE , multiple access at the same time and greater number of
units for the same number of controllers.
Price is NOT a problem ... I have already bought 4 x 18.2 IBM 10,000rpm
SCSI-3 for 95$ each (on eBay) <<
Putting eBay aside, if you buy fro
PLEASE - we did this whole raid/striping, ide vs scsi thing about 3
months ago.
Do we have to go through it all again?!?!
:-(
Mark
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners
> Putting eBay aside, if you buy from a legit dealer, you can expect to pay
> four to five times as much, per gigabyte of storage, when you choose SCSI
> over IDE.
I think that's BS. Do you have numbers to substantiate that, using same
speed drives?
> The newer and larger 7200 rpm drives typically have a larger
> cache than the
> older drives, and this would provide a larger performance gain than going
> from an Ultra ATA 66 to Ultra ATA 100.
Do you believe a larger cache helps with large file reads and writes? For
reads it is no help, and
How about taking all this HD and CPU stuff offline!!! I, for one, am really
tired of getting deluged with all this CRAP all over again.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanner
: 139507382
- Original Message -
From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard Drive Speed
>>SCSI hard disk drives is the answer.
Faster than any IDE , multiple
>> Please name the two drives you are claiming are a FIVE times price
increase
for SCSI vs IDE.<<
I looked up wholesale pricing for the IBM 18gb SCSI drive being discussed,
vs a 7200 rpm 100gb IDE drive for the same price and posted the results in a
previous message. The SCSI drive costs more tha
least)
... isn't it ?
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
ICQ: 139507382
- Original Message -
From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:20 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Slightly OT: Hard
> >> Please name the two drives you are claiming are a FIVE times price
> increase
> for SCSI vs IDE.<<
>
> I looked up wholesale pricing for the IBM 18gb SCSI drive being discussed,
> vs a 7200 rpm 100gb IDE drive for the same price and posted the
> results in a
> previous message. The SCSI driv
> How much faster is the best SCSI (Ultra wide?)
Currently it's U160 and U320!
> than current ATA 100 7200
> rpm technology?
Quite a bit, if you run RAID 0.
> Is it worth the extra hassle of SCSI?
It isn't necessarily a hassle, but it sure can be...which I am sure is true
of IDE RAID systems
ntly have IDE drives with lots of file cache. I
have yet to see acceptably priced SCSI disks of the size I required.
- Original Message -
From: "Moreno Polloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:06 PM
Subject: [films
> I'd like to find out more about the IBM Thinkpads that use SCSI
> drives. Can
> you point me to a link on www.ibm.com? Just one model would be sufficient.
I personally don't know of any notebooks that use SCSI drives, but I would
be happy if and when they do, at least have an external SCSI port
If anyone has anything important to say about film scanning, please
don't use the subject "Re: [filmscanners] RE: Slightly OT: Hard Drive
Speed" as I'm now deleting all messages with that subject.
Preston Ea
Steve,
> 5) raid striping is less reliable than a single disk of similar size.
That is a very debatable point (the rest of what you said, sounds fine to
me). It is a MTTF (Mean Time To Failure...and do not confuse that with
MTBF) issue, and MTTF for current drives is far more than yours or I wi
Thanks for answering my query and your input and views.
Art
Moreno Polloni wrote:
>>>How much faster is the best SCSI (Ultra wide?) than current ATA 100 7200
>>>
> rpm technology? Is it worth the extra hassle of SCSI?
>
> The best SCSI drives run at 15k. They are really fast. I don't have any
> If walked into a computer store and priced a SCSI and IDE drive,
> the results
> would be as I reported.
Wanna bet?
> >> by coming up with the exceptions.
>
> >Well, it is YOU who came up with a comparison of two exceptions...
> > a cheap LARGE IDE drive with an expensive SMALL SCSI drive.
>
> You can selectively quote big price lists in both directions.
Of course, but I wasn't selective. I just found the two lowest priced
drives with the same specs.
> Personally I feel that's a more accurate reflection of the market.
But your example does NOT reflect the market. Below, I clearl
21 matches
Mail list logo
