Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCSI vs. IDE In The Real World

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the safe-to-go-back-in-the-water dept.

Data Storage 586

An anonymous reader writes "Gerard Beekmans has a really good comparison of the speeds of IDE and SCSI drives up over on devchannel.org. Should help put an end to the myth of IDE erasing SCSI's speed advantage." Note that Beekmans' test handicaps the SCSI disk a bit, with interesting results. (DevChannel, like Slashdot, is part of OSDN.)

cancel ×

586 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264806)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim.

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264816)

I was worried that something happened to you my friends, but i am glad you are back in top class first posting form.

rkz

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264837)

The IP that posted the parent was 24.174.81.26. Feel free to do as your wish to it, because losers like the parent's poster should be banned from Slashdot. Fuck off and die, penisbird. -- Tirel

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264871)

Proxies baby!

p.s. fuck off and die

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Troll)

SoIosoft (711513) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264929)

Surely your ISP will have an interest in that you're abusing proxies. Remember, unauthorized use of open proxies is a felony. And we sure wouldn't want you immature GNAA morons behind bars, now would we? I suggest you leave Slashdot and never come back, or I will complain to Roadrunner, and we'll see what they have to say about it.

- CmdrTaco
pants are still optional

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264956)

Since when? Point me to where in my ISP's TOS that its against the rules to use open proxies?

FOAD.

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264986)

he said it's a felony, you dumbass. your ISP surely won't approve of you using your connection to commit felonies, and they can't possibly explicitly mention every possible way that idiots like you will break the law, in their TOS. now, I will be in touch with roadrunner. have a nice day.

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265017)

Uhh. your going to reprt him.. for saying.. he will use prokies? err they might laugh if they even reaud the emial. don't get me wrong GNAA is stupid.. i dant' believe in it.. bet comon

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265049)

That's fine, except I have friends at roadrunner.

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265076)

What? The guy who comes by and manages to screw up my cable service everytime there is work to be done in my neighborhood.

LMAO.

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265022)

okay, point me to the relevant statutes where using open proxies is a felony, dumbass.

ISP abuse desks dont give a rats ass about what some asshole on Slashdot thinks about someone using an open proxies overseas to post on Slashdot, especially when you're not the paying customer

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264851)

Nope doesn't count. You need to be logged in.

Re:GNAA: Gay Niggers Like Hard Drives (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264892)

We need more creative, humourous, and well-thought out trolls like the one above.

notfirstpost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264812)

this is a notfirst post

FUCK THE GNAA


www.scallion.sp00fed.net/photo/ OWNZ YOUR WORLDZ

Re:notfirstpost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264832)

Anally or Orally?

-Penisbird (prefers Anally)

I had a hard drive once... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264815)

Offtopic it baby yeah!

Does it matter? (1)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264822)

I don't want to install an extra SCSI board for some negligble performance gains.

In a RAID setup, it all evens out anyway.

You clearly are not elite (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264845)

With my Gigabyte GI-8IHXP motherboard, I am able use SCSI and IDE drives as is my wont. Also, I can make use of my gig of rdram. Yeah, bitches, my box is so elite that you can all bow down. I run RAID like a motherfucker, clearly, but that doesn't erase the fact that my box ownz all of your pathetic 386 debian crapfests.

Take note: You are owned.

Re:You clearly are not elite (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265098)

Oh yeah, does your "elite" box have a G5 in it? Didn't think so. So your claim to be leet is, in fact, a lame clame, which makes you a lamer, which is worse than being owned. Face it, gimp, Apple products kick ASS, and no amount of whining on the part of a lame PC user will change that fact. Now go home and cry to your mommy.

Re:Does it matter? (2, Insightful)

barc0001 (173002) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264872)

Negligable? 7 minutes to 28 seconds is negligible? What was the Columbia reentry? Almost great?

And just how exactly does it "all even out" in a RAID setup? IDE RAID and SCSI RAID are still two very different animals...

Re:Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

pstreck (558593) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264890)

Negligble? Umm, when you can unpack a kernel in a third of the time and see a 6 and a half minute difference in large reads these performance gains are not negligble. If this was a hairline race that was a matter of a few seconds I could understand, but anyone who does work that is disk intensive will benifit from scsi.

new matrix trailers out! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264823)

check out the revolutions trailers!

new revolutions trailers [blogsite.org]

Meaningless.. (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264824)


a really good comparison of the speeds of IDE and SCSI drives

Oh please. With all due respect to the submitter and Mr. Beekmans, this "comparison" ignores all sorts of other factors: write caching, command overlap, rotational speeds, et al ad nauseum. Yes, some of these are mentioned but a comparison such as this should have hard numbers in a table not opinions. Not that I'm suprised or upset that SCSI trounces IDE, but his comparison is virtually meaningless.

There are many benchmarking suites out there, I'd suggest these be used for the next test to provide some meaningful results.

Re:Meaningless.. (1)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264840)

Regardless of the things he ignored... 7 minutes to 1.5 minutes is a huge difference.

SCSI has it's uses... you don't have to pay for them if you don't want to.

Re:Meaningless.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264855)

I'd like to see him compare a good IDE drive, such as the Raptor. 10,000 rpm, 8 meg cache, Serial ATA interface.

Re:Meaningless.. (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265086)

Sure so long as he compares it to the fastest scsi drive out there I'd say that would be fair. Hell, even his 10k rpm drive would be fair if given the same 8mb cache.

Re:Meaningless.. (2, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264860)


Regardless of the things he ignored... 7 minutes to 1.5 minutes is a huge difference

Indeed it is but taking one small test's result and implying that the results can be applied across the board is misleading at best.

Re:Meaningless.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264887)

mod parent up

Re:Meaningless.. (1)

jdhutchins (559010) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264945)

Many of these things are done by the hard drive. One of the big reasons SCSI is expensive is because the disks are made much better. That probably makes up most of the difference, but most IDE disks are made to be big and cheap, not fast and reliable. If a hard drive is going to be fast and reliable, it's going to be with SCSI.

I somewhat agree with your point, but some (most?) of the SCSI-IDE difference is in the physical hard drive.

IDE w/ 2meg cache? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264828)

Why didn't he test one with 8 megs? Or ones of rougly the same size? Or ones with roughly the same anything? He also could've tested a newer Serial ATA drive. Heck, for the price of SCSI, you can build a nice RAID with multiple IDE drives and win back lots of speed. This review is a very big mess.

IDE for end-user... (3, Insightful)

seriv (698799) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264843)

and SCSI for servers. It is that simple, it will stay that way because of cost, not because of speed.
-Seriv

Re:IDE for end-user... (1)

phlyingpenguin (466669) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264933)

Well...

I use SCSI in my Personal Iris 4d/35, it's not a server. :-D Sure it's an age old SGI <b>workstation</b>. Anyway, don't limit/generalize it to servers because there are plenty of non-server (and I don't really even mean top end workstation, maybe mid-range) uses for SCSI.

Putting a SCSI drive in Gma's email machine might not be quite as smart though.

END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264852)

scsi and laptops (3, Interesting)

KhanAFur (693723) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264853)

This article show that scsi drive have a considerable advantage over the same spindle speed of ide drives. Laptops tend to have slower drives. Has anyone considered using scsi drives in laptops?

Does anyone know fo laptops that use scsi drives?

-Mary

Re:scsi and laptops (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264937)

Apple did, but dumped it cause it cost too much even for them

Re:scsi and laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265039)

alphabook1

Laptop Hard Drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265061)

...are slower due to the power constraints of laptops. If you had unlimited power, like a cold fusion powered laptop, then yeah go ahead toss a SCSI drive into it.

However, in the real world, if you were to start shoving SCSI drives into laptops you would have to carry a few extra batteries to get the same amount of running time as someone that is using a standard equipped laptop. Plus, the cost would be outrageous.

Modern Laptop hard drives are actually much swifter then laptop hard drives of 5 years ago and even 3 years back. Not by much mind you, but they are a little bit faster...

Re:scsi and laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265096)

Last time a coworker looked (couple years back) you couldn't even buy SCSI 2.5". They finally had to switch controller boards and rewrite some real time software to switch to IDE. Power and size where huge considerations here, so using 3.5" was out.

SCSI vs. IDE: Same experiences (1)

yanestra (526590) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264857)

Funny, I had the same experiences with older hardware: SCSI always appeared to be faster, subjectively, on a medium load database/web server. I was really impressed about the dimensions (7 to 20 times!); the pure hardware capacity/speed gave no hint.

Re:SCSI vs. IDE: Same experiences (1)

statusbar (314703) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264895)

Yes, so what is it that makes the IDE drives so much slower than they theoretically should be? Is it simply the poor design of the IDE chipsets and interrupt structure?

--jeff++

Re:SCSI vs. IDE: Same experiences (1)

oolon (43347) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264971)

This is something I also would like to know, A scsi card is also sitting on the PCI bus so I would not have thought the problem was there. I wonder how SATA discs compare with Scsi.

James

Re:SCSI vs. IDE: Same experiences (2, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265052)

Here's some anecdotal evidence for you. Many moons ago, when CD ROMs were still a rare beast, I had two models of the same dual speed drive on my desk, one IDE and one SCSI. These were state of the art drives at the time. I had a sample disc with a large Video for Windows file - must have been 10MB at least! On the IDE model playback was jerky and the CPU was maxed at 100%, while on the SCSI version the CPU never got above 50% and playback was smooth as silk.

The reason for this being that SCSI handles far more of the overhead of managing the disk on the controller than IDE, which left much of the work to the CPU. Of course, this technological gap has narrowed considerably with the evolution of IDE into EIDE and now ATA drives.

I have to confess, I'm a die hard SCSI fan when I can justify it (although I might be swayed by second generation SATA). While the real world performance gap of SCSI-vs-IDE is long gone, SCSI drives are still synonomous with servers, which usually translates into a more robust product. How much is *your* data worth compared to the SCSI price premium?

Re:SCSI vs. IDE: Same experiences (1)

rongage (237813) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265094)

This is because SCSI, by defination, is an intelligent bus. In very simple terms, with SCSI, you basically tell the drive to go to sector x, read y sectors, and let me know when the data is available in it's entirety. While waiting for the process to complete, your OS can go about doing something else as it only has to wait for the data to become available (DMA transfered so it just shows up in memory).

In IDE, the OS has to position the head, wait x sectors, read a sector, save it into memory, go to the next sector, read again, store again, and so on. In other words, there is no offloading of the actual data retrieval process, so the OS has to do it all, causing significant overhead in data transfers. Because of the timing sensitive nature of reading several megabytes worth of data in a few milliseconds, letting the OS do other things while reading the data is not a really good idea.

Re:SCSI vs. IDE: Same experiences (1)

Rorschach1 (174480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264984)

My old workstation at work, with an Ultra160 drive, outperformed my ATA-100 RAID0 stripeset at home.

I've upgraded since then, and my workstation now runs four 15,000 RPM Ultra320 drives in RAID5 configuration. It's pretty sweet. Not quite as visibly sexy as the dual 20" flatpanels, though.

I'm so spoiled.

Offtopic, but still: (1)

mbadolato (105588) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265099)

Not quite as visibly sexy as the dual 20" flatpanels, though.

No no, HERE is a sexy display... Someone sent me a link to this [go-l.com] today.

MUST...HAVE

Re:SCSI vs. IDE: Same experiences (2, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265028)

Same experience here too... I have a P166 server with 128Meg RAM, and before it ran just from an IDE disk. It was terribly slow. I later replaced it with an Adaptec 2940UW with an relatively old IBM 18Gig SCSI harddisk. The difference was mindblowing. It was as if I had upgraded the CPU with a P-II...

It's insane... SCSI is worths it's money... I just don't have the money... ;-)

Real world (2, Insightful)

someguy456 (607900) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264867)

In the real world, you must also take into consideration different file size ranges, tree structures, and file systems. Comparing two hd technologies while keeping these factors constant isn't very "real world" to me.

And back to reality. (3, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264991)

And in the REAL real world, the author of this piece discovered that, for his application, the SCSI drive was at least 300% faster.

Why isn't his test, done with real world data, not a 'real world' test?

Re:Real world (4, Insightful)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264999)

In the real world, you must also take into consideration cost. A fair test would be to take a budget of $500 and try two setups, one with IDE and one withSCSI, with any leftover cash spent buying as much RAM as possible. Then see which system perfoms better with a variety of benchmarks.

That's the point of keeping them constant. (1)

caveat (26803) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265014)

It eliminates the all those other variables, leaving only the drives themselves to affect the speed. Of course, whether or not reading a mutt mail folder really depends on drive speed is up to you.

terrible review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264876)

No real benchmarks and how can you have a drive test with no pretty graphs?

Holy shit. (3, Insightful)

Ophidian P. Jones (466787) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264877)

I can't believe this kind of bullshit gets posted on Slashdot. For those who didn't read the article (and I know you're out there), the guy compared how long it takes to open his maildir file in Mutt on SCSI and then IDE.

Since it went faster on his SCSI drive, he concludes that SCSI is faster. Wow! How comprehensive!

If Slashdot keeps this up, I hope they start to get a reputation like Tomshardware.com (those people are full of shit as well).

Fo shizzle, ma nizzle (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264957)

I caint recon' dis kinda' bullshit gits posted on Slashdot. 4 dose-dair who didn't eyeball da article (down low, an' I know u r out dair), da guy compared how long it snatchs t' jimmey wassups maildir stash in Mutt on S-C-S-fuckin'-I an' den I-D-fuckin'-E. Sheeeiit.

Since it went fasta' on wassups SCSI roll, he concludes dat SCSI be fasta'. Wow! How comprehensive!

If Slashdot keeps dis down, I hope they start t' git some rep likes Tomshardware.com (down low, dose-dair sucka's be full o' shit as well).

Fo sho.

Re:Holy shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265059)

He proved that seek time makes a difference in openning a large number of files. Big whoop.

The stupidest thing was he didn't even mention that seek time was probably the biggest factor.

Why Western Digital? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264878)

Not that I don't believe SCSI isn't faster than IDE, but why did they take what are notoriously the slowest IDE drives out there (Western Digital)?

It seems to me that they set out to prove a point from the start. If it was me, I would have used a Seagate IDE drive.

You get what you pay for. (4, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264881)

Besides the speed advantage, SCSI drives also typically last two to three times longer than their IDE counterparts, and generally go through more rigorous testing.

Tape drives are like this, too. They look the same, they act about the same during the write process, but the cheapie drives that come with some servers will fail to reread the tapes if they're reused as constantly as they are in most businesses (who, on average, reuse the same weekly tapes for a full year or more!). Better to put the money into a DLTtape solution than to rely on what's bundled with the server.

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264918)

What if you steal it ?

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264968)

Besides the speed advantage, SCSI drives also typically last two to three times longer than their IDE counterparts, and generally go through more rigorous testing.

This is absolutely true. Apple used to ship all SCSI drives in their machines and I still have twelve year old Macs that have never had a hard drive failure. The new IDE drives however are a different story. That said, Apple appears to do more quality testing on their hard drives in that since Apple started shipping Macs with IDE drives, I have had two failures. Compare this with Wintel boxes like Dells where I have had close to ten IDE drive failures.

The other issue that folks should know is that if you are doing any work that is truly disc intensive (like photoshop or scientific computing) then SCSI has historically been the protocol of choice with much faster speeds possible with SCSI. For instance, I have insisted on 10-15k RPM drives for my work and they are much faster than even the fastest IDE devices. This is starting to change with fast SATA drives however and I am looking forward to some new options with the G5.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

CatOne (655161) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264972)

All the HD vendors do more rigorous testing on SCSI drives than IDE drives. Of that there is no debate -- because they produce 10x to 100x more IDE drives at such a low price point, they can't do rigorous qualification.

Now, some vendors actually do extensive testing on IDE drives they receive before they put them in a system, and fail a large percentage. Those drives in general are pretty darn good... possibly as reliable as SCSI drives due to the failure modes of drives (generally not a hard failure, but a soft failure when the drive has no more entries in the bad sector mapping table).

IDE drives these days are rated up to 1 million hours MTBF, which is pretty good ;-)

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

Tisephone (709174) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265097)

Could you name some of those vendors, please?

Re:You get what you pay for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265030)

Actually a lot of the older SCSi hardware was the exact same as the IDE counterpart with a different interface. A hard drive is a hard drive, its the interface that makes it SCSI or IDE. IDE drives in home/small business computers though are subjected to numerous power offs, idiot users as opposed to a set server routine with totally stable power the SCSI's were afforded

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265063)

At one time, I believed this - but not anymore. Gone are the days of SCSI drives being huge beasts that occupied 2 5.25" drive bays and came with standard 5 year warranties.

Most of the recent SCSI drives I've seen look like they're manufactured using the same parts as their IDE counterparts, except for different controller circuitry.

(Take a look at the new Western Digital SCSI drives, for example. You'd mistake them for their Caviar EIDE drives if you didn't check the connector or read the label on them.)

Nowdays, the profit margins on hard drives are very small. Manufacturers try to use SCSI drive sales to help "pad" their slim profits made on the EIDE drives. You're not getting "2 or 3 times better quality" components in a SCSI drive.

I will agree that tape drives are a different story, however. If you actualy run your tape backups on a nightly basis, religiously, you have no business buying anything less than a DLT drive. The DAT drives and all the other cheaper solutions are "consumer-grade", meaning they're only intended for the occasional use (such as doing a full backup right before wiping out or upgrading your hard drive). They'll quickly wear out and break down if you do much more than that with them.

But generally, the only real advantage I see to SCSI for servers right now is they tend to be faster on the extreme high-end (15,000 RPM drives are only available in SCSI format, for example - as were 10,000 RPM's and even 7,200 RPM's when they first came out). This, of course, is also because manufacturers are smart enough to put their new/most desirable technologies where they can get the maximum profit margins from them. It would be silly to introduce something like that on IDE first, where you wouldn't even be likely to earn back your R&D money.

Not an accurate test (2, Interesting)

pagercam2 (533686) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264882)

The document lists one and only one case. I don't doubt that SCSI has performance benfits that is pretty well known. I've always wondered why they don't upgrade IDE with a better command set much like SCSI, well they haven't they just increase the clock speed and offer better buffering. So there is a valid case for a comparison between SCSI and IDE. This review does one and only one test which proves that SCSI wins on one test this is not a good article. He reads one and only one file. The real question is how well IDE and SCSI operate under real multi-treaded OS conditions. Slashdot editors should be rejecting this article in favour of one with a real indepth analysis. SCSI will win but not for the reasons listed in this article.

Re:Not an accurate test (2, Informative)

Frostalicious (657235) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264983)

He reads one and only one file.

No, he read 50,000 files.

every email message is stored in a separate file....I used a maildir folder containing 50,000 emails.

Sure it would have been better for him to run a number of scenarios, but he couldn't build himself a whole lab due to cost factors. Even with this rudimentary testing, a difference of 8 times indicates to me that there is an effect.

Re:Not an accurate test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265087)

but what causes this difference? since he uses two different platforms, there are a number of factors that could be the cause (or a culmination of various differences). for proper testing, only the variable in question should differ.

a bad benchmark is worse than none at all, spreading much FUD.

Re:Not an accurate test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265093)

real multi-treaded OS conditions

Should this be tested with a stair-step algorythm?

Forget SCSI... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264902)

...I want Fibre Channel, baby!!! Amateurs. ;-)

Re:Forget SCSI... (1)

red floyd (220712) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265013)

SCSI does run over Fibre Channel.

Look up FCP on t10.org.

Re:Forget SCSI... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265041)

It's a joke. Relax.

Comparo? (1)

BrodyVess (455213) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264904)

That was the lamest thing I've ever read from /. Where are the numbers? Graphs? Not to mention- 800 dollars! Granted, its Canuck bucks, but still... Sheesh. Does the average bear need that time difference?

Now- rewrite this article... Explain the systems it was used in. He mentions that the IDE system had a faster processor. What was it? How much faster? What kind of motherboard? I know from experience that a crappy-ass IDE controller can handicap you from the start. Whats the difference if he used a dedicated but cheap IDE controller card? This seems on the level of- I shot a pumpkin with a .22 and it didn't move. I shot it with a bazooka and it blew up. Therefore- bazookas are more useful than .22s. Which may be true in certian situations. But if I'm plinking in my backyard I'll spend the .07 cents that each 22 round costs me rather than hundreds on that RPG round. I dont need an 800 dollar hard drive to frag in UT, check my mail, surf the net, or read /.

This is a pretty crappy comparison, actually. (1)

CatOne (655161) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264905)

How long does it take to read my 50,000 message maildir.

Well that's scientific.

Not to mention, it's an archaic 2 MB cache drive. Yeesh.

I think IDE versus SCSI is a fairly silly comparison these days. They each have their use cases. For lowest seek times and max IOPS, go with a 15K SCSI drive. For fastest transfer rates, do RAID with IDE drives. Hell, the Xserve RAID I work with daily can transfer about 350 MB/sec sustained. Try matching that with SCSI drives :-)

FYI: Gerard Beekmans... (3, Informative)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264908)

...is the original creator of Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] , and therefore registers very high on all standard 7331-meters

Well, he sucks at doing comparisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264946)

Perhaps he should take a class on statistics or research.

Re:FYI: Gerard Beekmans... (1)

obsidianpreacher (316585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265051)

Does anyone here speak 7331 ("teel")? I don't get it ...

My result. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264922)

[root@localhost root]# hdparm -t /dev/hda /dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 146 MB in 3.02 seconds = 48.34 MB/sec

This is IDE 7200 60Gb Maxtor drive using Linux 2.4.22-10mdk

Re:My result. (1)

dracocat (554744) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265045)

/dev/sda: Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.21 seconds =609.52 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 0.38 seconds =168.42 MB/sec SCSI wins.

SCSI Costs too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264930)

A quick trip to www.pricewatch.com clearly shows why IDE and Serial ATA are winning. The SCSI drives come in smaller sizes at more than 2x the cost of the other drives. They also don't require you to buy a SCSI motherboard or an extra card to use.

lame comparison (1)

magical22 (664542) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264951)

Why doesn't he compare it to a newer serial ATA drive running raid 0.... Since everyone has newer boards anyways, I dont have one myself or I'd bench it but I am sure its a lot faster than what his ide drives are getting, prolly not as fast as the scsi but I bet a lot more in tune, and will leave you with a pocket full of cash.

I'll take IDE over SCSI anyday (1)

bigjnsa500 (575392) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264953)

Sorry, but the subject says it all. And it is strictly a cost opinion. A year ago, my office bought 8 180gig U160 SCSI drives for a price of $1160 each. Today you can buy a 200 gig IDE for under $200. And in real world use, the speed is relatively the same.

Oh and did I mention to even use U160 you need either a kick butt motherboard or a $500 SCSI card?

Even most RAID enclosure vendors are going to IDE drives.

Why not make it a fair test... (1)

Judg3 (88435) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264966)

And compare serial drives to serial drives.
I would have loved to see that SCSI against an SATA150 drive.

Re:Why not make it a fair test... (1)

demon (1039) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265056)

SCSI is NOT serial. FireWire/IEEE1394/i.Link is serial. SCSI is not, and never has been. If you're going to talk about fair comparisons, then let's be fair, otherwise please stop talking.

Re:Why not make it a fair test... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265079)

You do realise SCSI is parallel technology don't you?

Speed isn't the only advantage SCSI has over IDE (1)

SoIosoft (711513) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264967)

In my experience, IDE is nothing but a mess. For example, I had removed power to an IDE drive in my machine, but left the IDE cable connected. The result was a machine that simply didn't want to boot.

Another big problem with IDE is that it's limited on the number of devices it supports without purchasing seperate IDE controllers that use up PCI slots. SCSI is much better on this.

On the other hand, I will be very curious about the performance of SATA, which is somewhat based off IDE, but with significant performance improvements. The future is still based off IDE because SCSI hardware is just too expensive to go in most machines. At a time when cost is a bigger factor in hardware than performance, SCSI just won't win.

Isn't this article a Mac troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264992)

I seem to recall comments on Slashdot about how long it takes to copy files on Macs or something.

Year old hardware.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7264995)

Just as a curiousity, I wonder what sort of controller he was using for the IDE. Judging from spindle speed alone means little especially due to his cramming a 64 bit card in a 32 bit slot would lead one to believe that he might also have the '1 year old drive' on a 3 year old motherboard with a non U66/100/133. Not enough specs to be touted as any sort of real world comparison. Real world tests do show the U320 SCSI standard as being the fastest out there but I'll take my crappy 3ware U/100 8 port RAID card with 8 WD 200G 8M over a similar SCSI just because its under 1/3 the total cost.

Unfair comparison (1)

t0qer (230538) | more than 10 years ago | (#7264998)

The Maxtor was 40gb
The Atlas was 9gb

The Atlas obviously had less tracks too seek through than the Maxtor because it had 1/4 of the total number of tracks the maxtor did. This would totally account for the 1/3 speed increase seen over the IDE solution.

Also to take into consideration is how much buffer each drive has. If I remember right, Atlas's have like 8 megs of buffer, while the 40 gig maxtors have like 2.

Re:Unfair comparison (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265089)

Funny! I read your post and milk came out of my nose.

Quality article? (1)

Boone^ (151057) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265001)

It appears that DevChannel, a part of OSDN, adheres to the /. article format: 500 words or less.

Great comparison? He only tried 2 things! What about random file access? large/small file access? streaming/random? multiple streaming? I don't pretend to know all aspects of Hard drive performance, but it's sure as hell bigger than that article supports. What a waste of bandwidth.

Better than Slashdot (1)

olePigeon (Wik) (661220) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265007)

At least they got Gb and GB correct. ;)

Hard Drive Performance isn't an issue to me now (1)

rock_climbing_guy (630276) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265008)

The issue I've been dealing with is network performance. I set up a new SAMBA server, outfitted with 160 GB RAID, 2 GHz Celeron, and gigabit ethernet; the performance sucks. I get about 120 Mbps max transferring large files. Yes, the client machine is a fast machine too, but I've read that I should be getting 500 Mbps or more. I've checked everything and I have no idea what could possible wrong.

Anyways, it seems that network performance has always been more of a bottleneck than hard drive performance. Is it the other way around then for many other admins???

Poor Submission (1)

niko9 (315647) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265011)

I can't believe how short sighted and obtuse this articles is. But you know what really burns my ass? A flame about this /points at buttocks/ high!

--

Were the drives even defragmented? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265023)

Even something such as that could have a *huge* impact on speed.

IDE apologists (1, Insightful)

Shaman (1148) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265026)

It's funny watching the people who like the cost of IDE trying to make as if this test is totally innacurate.

Well, what if YOUR mail client was taking 7 minutes to go through your mail folder every time? Eh? Not sounding so good now, huh?

Re:IDE apologists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7265031)

I'd buy a good IDE drive! He didn't exactly test a high end IDE drive.

consider cost capacity as well (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265033)

In the "real world" speed isnt the only important factor, if it was will would all use solid state drives.

~$150 for 40GB IDE setup
$700 for 9GB SCSI setup

You could have the 3 or 4 IDE drives running in a raid1 setup which would improve read time, have better data security and you would still have 4 times the capacity of the SCSI setup of the same price.

SCSI is for dumb rich people, and people who assume you get what you pay for.

Possibly misleading (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265034)

He's comparing different priced setups. An IDE RAID setup of equal cost and capacity to the SCSI would probably have faired much better in the benchmark.

Oh, come ON. (3, Insightful)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265043)

That "benchmark" was ridiculous. "I have this two-year-old IDE hard drive and I'm going to benchmark it against this SCSI drive. Woop, look! It read my mail directory faster! SCSI must be better!"

Look, I'm not denying that SCSI is faster. But he neglected to even do any other tests! He also neglected to use a newer IDE drive, which hampered the IDE performance dramatically. (Who's going to use a 2MB cache IDE drive in any area where hard drive performance is critical?)

Personally, I'd like to see the test of an IDE RAID array running off a 3Ware card. For the price of one SCSI drive, you can get 3 8MB cache IDE drives, plus the 3Ware card. Oh, sure, it will probably still be a bit slower than SCSI. But at least the benchmarks will show some sort of logical comparison (and the benefit of IDE -- namely, tons of disk space.)

Is it just me, or have the articles posted on Slashdot recently been pretty lame? I just don't understand how some of this stuff gets posted to the front page. This is not a review. This is not a benchmark. It's one guy who tested one application of hard drives and made a conclusion based on that test. This type of stuff can be found in any newsgroup or forum on a daily basis. It should not have been posted to the front page of Slashdot.

An important health warning! (1, Flamebait)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265050)

I smoke cigars, and feel just fine.

My coworker eats life-savers, and has been diagnosed with skin cancer.

I conclude from this experiment that life savers cause cancer, but cigars are ok.

Could have done a better job with this comparison (1)

i)ave (716746) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265069)

Specifically: What was the file-system used on each system? What size clusters were used? The SCSI platter of 9GB (compared to the 40GB of the IDE) has a significantly simpler job of locating the data if it has not been defragmented. What's with the 4MB cache on the SCSI vs. 2MB on the IDE? Why not do the comparison on different operating systems? I'd like to know the manufacturer of the motherboard and the production date? Lastly, as a responsible service to those less knowledgable -- it would have been nice to see some mention that IDE disk-striping can be had for less than a standalone SCSI drive+Controller.

Where SCSI shines (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 10 years ago | (#7265085)

Single user, single machine, single disk, single transaction? IDE performs ~equal to SCSI, and at a fraction the price.

Multiple simultaneous transactions is where SCSI wins. Try comparing SCSI vs. IDE for something like an NFS server, and watch SCSI leave IDE in the dust.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>