Quoted:
I've always been a SCSI fan. I've had SCSI on my home computer for 8+ years now. I've always heard that they multitask much better than IDE drives. I once ran a test of loading Doom off of the same machine. Once with a SCSI drive and the other as IDE. The SCSI kicked its butt.
My current scsi drives are about 3-6 years old. Old 50 pin scsi and a few of the newer 68 pin scsi's.
My question. Is it sill benifical to go the extra mile and get a SCSI drive as my main bootable drive? I'm looking at getting an Adaptec controller 29160 and a Scsi ULTRA 160 drive. ST318405LW. Theoretically, up to 160MB a minute. I think IDE says burstable up to 100MB per minute.
The SCSI would only be for my boot/operating drive. All my storage would be on cheaper IDE drives on my computer or on my networked 'server' computer.
Thoughts?
View Quote
I'll probably be the only one to say this, but I wouldn't waist the money on SCSI unless it was on a heavily used server.
Recently, Maxtor announced the release of the new Ultra ATA/133 technology. Almost all major chipset suppliers plan to support this technology, which is a definate plus. They have also announced the formation of the Big Drive Initiative, a group of leading technology companies that plan to break the standard 32bit 137gb barrier. This new technology would use a 48 bit data path which will increase the maximum ATA (IDE) disk size to around 144 petabytes (1 petabyte = 1,000 terabytes.)
Anyway, my point is this: With Ultra ATA/133 and the extremely large IDE drives that will soon hit the market, I'd just wait. The cost will far outweigh the benefit in the SCSI vs IDE battle..
Good luck!!!
on edit--
The newer motherboards with the AMD 760(761) chipset often have aftermarket RAID controllers build in. First, let me explain what RAID 0 and RAID 1 is:
RAID 0 is disk striping only. This means that it will combine your two (or more) physical disks into 1 large drive (2 40gb disks would equal 1 80gb disk.) This is a great way to effectively increase performance because data is written twice as fast as it is only one drive were used. This implementation of RAID provides no fault tolerance.
RAID 1 is disk mirroring. This is when there is another disk that "mirrors" the original disk. This provides a moderate level of fault tolerance.
RAID 0/1 is a combination of the two (duh!)
Anyway, you can effectively out-perform the transfer rates of any SCSI drive if you decide to use Ultra ATA/100 in a RAID 0 configuration. This is just something to think about. It will save you some money and will provide you with a faster product! Good luck..