Help with options for data back-up Raid SCSI?? Just some ideas

[Fishhead]

The CPU use is probably better now.
But DMA has nothing to do with SCSI's faster access times.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

I always thought the access times on the SCSI drives were the lowest..

Higher RPM gives faster access time. Access time is only a part of a HD's
performance. Same RPM SCSI doesn't give significantly better performance
in single user workstation usage. SCSI excels in saturated server I/O
because of the onboard command queuing. You have listed many of the basic
elements of the SCSI myth that has been perpetrated on the public by SCSI
zealots who derive income from SCSI configurations.

And then there is the low CPU use.

No lower than current ATA....another SCSI myth(flat out lie)

 

[Ron Reaugh]

The CPU use is probably better now.
But DMA has nothing to do with SCSI's faster access times.

What does have to do with myths?

 

[Fishhead]

I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
They have the same MB, CPU, same memory and same OS.

My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.

The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM
My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM

 

[Ron Reaugh]

I now have all SCSI in 1 PC and all IDE in the other.
They have the same MB, CPU, same memory and same OS.

My SCSI is much faster, and is not bogged down in photo shop.

The IDE drivers are UDMA133 type 7200 RPM

Try an SATA Raptor and you wont be able to sense any performance difference
between the two machines simply by using them.

My SCSI is 160 type 15k RPM

Any such statement is meaningless without specifying drive model.

 

[Fishhead]

So there is no reason to upgrade the SCSI drives??

When I am in photoshop, I might open 50 files at once, 20meg each.
These run in batches, the SCSI system blows the IDE away.

 

[Fishhead]

Fujitsu MAM3367MC
Size: 36.7 GB Internal Drive
Speed: 15000 rpm
Access Time: 3.5 ms
Interface: Ultra160 SCSI

 

[Fishhead]

Western Digital SATA Raptor 74GB
apacity: 74 GB
RPM: 10,000
Interface: SATA
Cache: 8 MB
Read Seek: 5.2 ms
Write Seek: 5.9 ms
Latency: 2.99 ms

 

[Fishhead]

And it seems the price per MB is a bit cheaper for the SCSI...
(compared to the Raptor)

 

[Eric Gisin]

Higher RPM gives faster access time. Access time is only a part of a HD's
performance. Same RPM SCSI doesn't give significantly better performance
in single user workstation usage. SCSI excels in saturated server I/O
because of the onboard command queuing. You have listed many of the basic
elements of the SCSI myth that has been perpetrated on the public by SCSI
zealots who derive income from SCSI configurations.

Just like the deathstar (75GXP) myth, right Ron?
Remember the "IBM slime cult" that was responsible for that mth?

 

[Ron Reaugh]

So there is no reason to upgrade the SCSI drives??

No cost efficient reason.

When I am in photoshop, I might open 50 files at once, 20meg each.
These run in batches, the SCSI system blows the IDE away.

Then get a WDC Raptor or two(RAID 0).

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Fujitsu MAM3367MC
Size: 36.7 GB Internal Drive
Speed: 15000 rpm
Access Time: 3.5 ms
Interface: Ultra160 SCSI

An older slower model and how much did you pay when it first came out?
The Maxtor Atlas 15K II is the hot one now.

What model 7200 RPM ATA drive?

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Western Digital SATA Raptor 74GB
apacity: 74 GB
RPM: 10,000
Interface: SATA
Cache: 8 MB
Read Seek: 5.2 ms
Write Seek: 5.9 ms
Latency: 2.99 ms

Sustained transfer rate at the beginning for the SATA Raptor is 72MB/sec.
The SCSI MAM3367MC transfer rate at the beginning is 57 MB/sec.

Consider the cost of current models of each and don't forget to include the
cost of the controllers.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

And it seems the price per MB is a bit cheaper for the SCSI...
(compared to the Raptor)

NO!!

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Gisin lunatic rantings always the same as so many have noticed..


news:[email protected]...

 

[Rod Speed]

The CPU use is probably better now.

No probably about it.

But DMA has nothing to do with SCSI's faster access times.

I didnt comment on access times.

And access times arent relevant for your machine use anyway.

 

[Dr. Anton T. Squeegee]

In my home network.
2 pc's and 1 tablet PC
All ran through router (wired and wireless)
Tablet does not need a redundant back-up

Main PC stores video and images
other PC stores images.

I lost 2 hardrives in 2 days!!!

Main PC has SCSI 160 card with 4 drives and 1 80gig IDE for backup
Secondary PC has 3 IDE drives, no back-up.

Not good.

Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

Keep the peace(es).



--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Not good.

Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

Not good.

Suggest tape-based system, either DLT-IV or SuperDLT.

WAY past their useby date for personal workstations.

Keep the peace(es).

Piss orf.

 

[calypso]

Forget tape. Use removable SATA HDs for backup on modest configurations.

Never do that! Tapes are tapes, and are used for backup... Hotswap drives
can't be used for backup (they could simply die much easier than any
tape)...