Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raptor or SCSI - Which is going to perform the best?

Tags:
  • Hardware
  • SCSI
  • Raptor
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 1:55:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
to no discernable "chug".

Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
plunge.

Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
selection.

Thanks in advance!

More about : raptor scsi perform

Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 9:17:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Marc Brown" <retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dc342ba.0409272055.43d29fa0@posting.google.com...
> The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> Raptor.

He's got the best sane HD for a desktop.

> I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> application.

Forget SCSI.

> In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> load off the CPU during drive access,

That is FALSE.

> with the result being little
> to no discernable "chug".

That is a bogus claim.

> Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> fastest possible drive out there,

For gaming, true.

> and would certainly offer better
> performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with.

Nope, spend 4x dollars and get a Fujitsu MAS3735 and an Adaptec 29320 and
you'll find the performance indistinguishable for gaming.

> I frankly
> wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> plunge.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> not much point in asking which Raptor to get,

74GB only.

> owing to the limited
> selection.
>
> Thanks in advance!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 10:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Marc Brown wrote:

> The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> to no discernable "chug".
>
> Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> plunge.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> selection.
>
> Thanks in advance!

In practical terms for your application you're not going to see any real
difference between a Raptor and a SCSI drive. I doubt that the "chug"
you're seeing has anything to do with the CPU workload in accessing the
drive--copying files typically shows one percent utilization on my machine.
Either the game is waiting to load something or Windows is paging. In
either case adding RAM is more likely than a faster drive to provide real
benefit.

The 74 GB Raptor is certainly no faster than the 74 GB 15K RPM SCSI drives,
but it is in the same performance league as the 10K RPM drives and a good
deal cheaper.

I'm not sure what newegg you were looking at, the one at
<http://www.newegg.com&gt; lists 32 different SCSI host adapters ranging in
price from $23 to $700, with all but two of them in stock. As far as
selection of drives goes, among 36 gig 15K RPM SCSI drives there isn't all
that much choice either.

Personally I'd max out the RAM on the machine before I tried a faster drive.



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Related resources
September 28, 2004 10:16:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Marc Brown wrote:
> The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> to no discernable "chug".
>
That's potentially true, but Windows probably won't take full
advantage of the potential.

> Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with.

ANY SCSI solution? There are "SCSI solutions" out there that will
blow away anything you're likely to be able to afford.

I frankly
> wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> plunge.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> selection.
>
> Thanks in advance!

The fastest disk access is the one that isn't even necessary. Get
enough RAM to allow all performance critical data to reside in it.

If that won't work for you, look into RAID. Spending a fortune on
fast individual disks is usually a waste.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
September 28, 2004 12:07:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Before you get to this, you'd better check which application causes a "disk
chug".
Filemon from Sysinternals is a good tool to use for that purpose. Once you
know it, try to reconfigure that application to use a RAM disk. If it writes
a lot of data, install more RAM and make a bigger RAM disk.

"Marc Brown" <retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dc342ba.0409272055.43d29fa0@posting.google.com...
> The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> to no discernable "chug".
>
> Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> plunge.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> selection.
>
> Thanks in advance!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 12:15:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Marc Brown wrote:
>
> The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> to no discernable "chug".
>
> Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> plunge.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> selection.
>
> Thanks in advance!

Just stick two ordinary (quickish) IDE drives in RAID 0 for excellent
performance.

Even better, get a SCSI raid card and 2 x 10K rpm SCSI drives (cheap.)

Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 12:18:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Marc Brown" <retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dc342ba.0409272055.43d29fa0@posting.google.com...
> The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> to no discernable "chug".

Talking about a Western Digital Raptor Serial ATA drive, right ?

In the past, one of SCSI advantages is that it took the load off the CPU for
SCSI device (hard drive, scanner, tape backup, etc) access.
A SCSI controller is better at managing multiable SCSI (5 or 10 or
15)devices at the same time
IDE/ATA controllers can handle one data request at a time
SCSI also has better ways of handling multiable data requests, which are
just now being added to the S-ATA (Data Queing ?).
The old IDE controllers need to steal CPU cycles to work.
The newer IDE/ATA chipsets take alot of the drive access workload off the
CPU.
ATA is really Parallel-ATA, S-ATA is Serial-ATA, think of S-ATA as the
improved P-ATA

One of the reason S-ATA was adopted is because it could use the same
Microsoft drivers as P-ATA.

Or at least work with very little rewriting of Microsoft drivers.

No good reason to spend that extra money on SCSI stuff for just a gaming
machine.

Go with the Raptor S-ATA.


> Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> plunge.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> selection.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 12:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41590FAA.795848C1@hotmail.com...
> Marc Brown wrote:
> >
> > The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> > friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> > Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> > storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> > application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> > minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> > protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> > access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> > load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> > to no discernable "chug".
> >
> > Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> > fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> > performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> > wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> > IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> > any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> > see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> > certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> > might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> > nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> > plunge.
> >
> > Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> > I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> > seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> > since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> > not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> > selection.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
>
> Just stick two ordinary (quickish) IDE drives in RAID 0 for excellent
> performance.

RAID 0 may not help much with games.

> Even better, get a SCSI raid card and 2 x 10K rpm SCSI drives (cheap.)

NOPE, any cheap 10K RPM SCSI HDs, even if in RAID 0, will not outperform
Raptors.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 1:22:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Tod" <no_spam_me@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h796d.62884$wV.4110@attbi_s54...
>
> "Marc Brown" <retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9dc342ba.0409272055.43d29fa0@posting.google.com...
> > The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> > friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> > Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> > storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> > application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> > minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> > protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> > access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> > load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> > to no discernable "chug".
>
> Talking about a Western Digital Raptor Serial ATA drive, right ?
>
> In the past, one of SCSI advantages is that it took the load off the CPU
for
> SCSI device (hard drive, scanner, tape backup, etc) access.

That has NEVER been true since EIDE/ATA HDs used DMA mode and that was
OSR2 and NT4 SP4.

> A SCSI controller is better at managing multiable SCSI (5 or 10 or
> 15)devices at the same time

Exactly, that's where that onboard smarts contributes..multiple devices.
SCSI's onboard smarts does not help it be faster than 1 or 2 ATA HDs.

> IDE/ATA controllers can handle one data request at a time
> SCSI also has better ways of handling multiable data requests, which are
> just now being added to the S-ATA (Data Queing ?).

That contributes to performance on small record I/O database servers and NOT
single user workstations. In fact all those extra features of SCSI inhibits
optimal performance on a single user workstation.

> The old IDE controllers need to steal CPU cycles to work.

Very old.

> The newer IDE/ATA chipsets take alot of the drive access workload off the
> CPU.

Well, they just support DMA mode and DMA mode does relieve the CPU of
some burden.

> ATA is really Parallel-ATA, S-ATA is Serial-ATA, think of S-ATA as the
> improved P-ATA
>
> One of the reason S-ATA was adopted is because it could use the same
> Microsoft drivers as P-ATA.
>
> Or at least work with very little rewriting of Microsoft drivers.
>
> No good reason to spend that extra money on SCSI stuff for just a gaming
> machine.
>
> Go with the Raptor S-ATA.
>
>
> > Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> > fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> > performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> > wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> > IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> > any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> > see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> > certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> > might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> > nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> > plunge.
> >
> > Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> > I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> > seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> > since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> > not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> > selection.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
>
>
>
September 28, 2004 1:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in
news:Mt66d.445643$OB3.142996@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>>
>> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
>> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
>> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
>> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
>> not much point in asking which Raptor to get,
>
> 74GB only.

Why 74 only? Is there an issue (other than size) with the 36GB Drive?

TIA
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 1:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

JS wrote:

> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in
> news:Mt66d.445643$OB3.142996@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>>
>>> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
>>> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
>>> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
>>> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
>>> not much point in asking which Raptor to get,
>>
>> 74GB only.
>
> Why 74 only? Is there an issue (other than size) with the 36GB Drive?

The 74 is second-generation--if you check Storagereview you'll find that its
performance is considerably better than the 36.

>
> TIA

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 4:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Marc Brown wrote:

> The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> to no discernable "chug".
>
> Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
> nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
> plunge.
>
> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
> selection.
>
> Thanks in advance!

What matters for a good gamer PC is, in rough order of importance:
1. Memory capacity: at least 1GB, 2GB better, 4GB is best
2. Memory latency: insist on dual-channel, the faster the better
3. CPU chip speed: faster is better, 64b does not matter yet
4. Video card: see http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229
5. HD access time

To focus on HD performance, after taking care of items 1-4 above, note
that I listed access time as the key attribute -- not bandwidth. HD
vendors tout bandwidth, usually advertising the irrelevant peak bandwidth
instead of STR, but access time matters more for all but servers. The
access times for two performance leaders are: WDC Raptor 74GB SATA at
7.5 mS (4.5+3.0), and Seagate Cheetah 15K 73GB SCSI at 5.6 mS (3.6+2.0).
SCSI is still the clear winner if you ignore cost; but, SATA is built-in
on most good MBs these days, while a good SCSI HBA is pretty expensive
(the Adaptec 29320ALP-R, for example, lists for ~$395).

Note that WinXP did not have good support for SCSI. I don't know if SP2
fixed the XP problems, and I'd not pay for SCSI without making very
sure on that point.

One highly proclaimed storage feature is command queueing. SCSI has had
TCQ for years, SATA has NCQ in some hardware but limited driver support,
and PATA just doesn't get it. CQ is very important for database and
some storage server workloads, but it has near-zero value for a PC in a
single-user environment (except, maybe, for some CAD and software development
workloads).

Summary: buy a Raptor 74GB HD, or maybe a couple.

Note that I don't work for WDC. I just fired up my new PC, and I put
my money where my mouth is: 1GB of dual-channel RAM, and a 74GB Raptor.
--
Cheers, Bob
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 28, 2004 9:42:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<cjbefr01omt@news4.newsguy.com>...
>
> I doubt that the "chug"
> you're seeing has anything to do with the CPU workload in accessing the
> drive--copying files typically shows one percent utilization on my machine.

The problem doesn't seem to be that the CPU gets a big bite taken
out of it, because I can personally confirm that this is not the
case. Rather, it seems to be a Windows-originated inadequacy:
Whenever the drive is accessed, the potential seems high that
whatever process handles multitasking will choke. I experience
it all the time, every day. Say, I'm listening to an mp3. Hardly
CPU intensive, or demanding on the drive. But then I go type
something and it's like the PC has to take a split second to load
text graphics. No big deal, except that during that split second,
mp3 playback pauses, resulting in a minor delay / pop in the audio.
A better example: FPS games used to (and maybe still do) allow one
to "precache" all data associated with a given level before
beginning the level. Why? Because, regardless of whether or not
one suspected that drive access was the culprit, the simple _fact_
was that the games would pause whenever something that hadn't been
already loaded into ram was suddenly required. Absolutely
intolerable in a FPS game, hence the fix. I think drive access
has everything to do with the "chug". The only thing I'm not
clear on is whether a proper SCSI controller card will work to
reduce the phenomenon by preventing the CPU from having to force
everything to pause while it taps the drive.

> Personally I'd max out the RAM on the machine before I tried a faster drive.

Unfortunately, it is known, at least to those who visit forums
relating to performance and overclocking, that adding more than
1GB of ram actually tends to have a negative impact on performance.
I do of course refer to day-to-day and/or gaming performance, and
not, say, Photoshop performance.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 12:30:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"JS" <JS@huh.wha> wrote in message
news:Xns95721CD86D115DQ1V66HO78NX3AGH5MJX@127.0.0.1...
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in
> news:Mt66d.445643$OB3.142996@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> >>
> >> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> >> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> >> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> >> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> >> not much point in asking which Raptor to get,
> >
> > 74GB only.
>
> Why 74 only? Is there an issue (other than size) with the 36GB Drive?

36 is slower.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 12:33:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

> In practical terms for your application you're not going to see any real
> difference between a Raptor and a SCSI drive. I doubt that the "chug"
> you're seeing has anything to do with the CPU workload in accessing the
> drive--copying files typically shows one percent utilization on my
machine.
> Either the game is waiting to load something or Windows is paging. In
> either case adding RAM is more likely than a faster drive to provide real
> benefit.
>
> The 74 GB Raptor is certainly no faster than the 74 GB 15K RPM SCSI
drives,
> but it is in the same performance league as the 10K RPM drives and a good
> deal cheaper.

On a single user workstation the Raptor IS the performance match of late
model triple cost 15K RPM SCSI HDs becuase of the extra command processing
overhead of SCSI. Check the HD performance websites.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 12:33:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:SUj6d.449582$OB3.262112@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > The 74 GB Raptor is certainly no faster than the 74 GB 15K RPM SCSI
> drives,
> > but it is in the same performance league as the 10K RPM drives and a good
> > deal cheaper.
>
Correct.

> On a single user workstation the Raptor IS the performance match of late
> model triple cost 15K RPM SCSI HDs becuase of the extra command processing
> overhead of SCSI. Check the HD performance websites.
>
Back with your SCSI/IDE delusions, Ronnie?

SCSI drives have faster processors and lower command overhead.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 12:42:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r3d6d.273097$Fg5.22374@attbi_s53...

>
> What matters for a good gamer PC is, in rough order of importance:
> 1. Memory capacity: at least 1GB, 2GB better, 4GB is best
> 2. Memory latency: insist on dual-channel, the faster the better
> 3. CPU chip speed: faster is better, 64b does not matter yet
> 4. Video card: see http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229
> 5. HD access time

In the context of a game that means for an entire disk I/O operation to
complete. If that operation transfers a large contiguous segment of the
disk then the operation will be transfer rate(STR) dominated. In disk
performance the term "access time" has a specific meaning and that excludes
any data I/O transfer time so your use of the term "access time" here is
likely inappropriate.

> To focus on HD performance, after taking care of items 1-4 above, note
> that I listed access time as the key attribute -- not bandwidth.

An that is inappropriate.

> HD
> vendors tout bandwidth, usually advertising the irrelevant peak bandwidth
> instead of STR, but access time matters more for all but servers.

Exactly BACKWARDS. STR matters most on many desktop applications including
games. STR is nearly meaningless for a server doing small record database
random I/O.

> The
> access times for two performance leaders are: WDC Raptor 74GB SATA at
> 7.5 mS (4.5+3.0), and Seagate Cheetah 15K 73GB SCSI at 5.6 mS (3.6+2.0).
> SCSI is still the clear winner if you ignore cost; but, SATA is built-in
> on most good MBs these days, while a good SCSI HBA is pretty expensive
> (the Adaptec 29320ALP-R, for example, lists for ~$395).
>
> Note that WinXP did not have good support for SCSI. I don't know if SP2
> fixed the XP problems, and I'd not pay for SCSI without making very
> sure on that point.

XP's SCSI support is/was just fine.

> One highly proclaimed storage feature is command queueing. SCSI has had
> TCQ for years, SATA has NCQ in some hardware but limited driver support,
> and PATA just doesn't get it. CQ is very important for database and
> some storage server workloads, but it has near-zero value for a PC in a
> single-user environment (except, maybe, for some CAD and software
development
> workloads).
>
> Summary: buy a Raptor 74GB HD, or maybe a couple.
>
> Note that I don't work for WDC. I just fired up my new PC, and I put
> my money where my mouth is: 1GB of dual-channel RAM, and a 74GB Raptor.


Me too.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 1:32:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

On 27 Sep 2004 21:55:09 -0700, retsa2@hotmail.com (Marc
Brown) wrote:

>The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
>friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
>Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
>storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
>application.

Doubtful, games rarely benefit from one particular _modern_
drive over another, except for (game) level loading.

> In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
>minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
>protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
>access.


You've either skipped a few steps in optimizing for gaming,
or at least failed to mention these steps, in addtion to
failing to mention the specific system. "Chug" is a
meaningless word, precise description of the environment is
necessary. Does friend's system play same game fine,
without "chug"? If so, is friend's system IDENTICAL
otherwise?

> I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
>load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
>to no discernable "chug".

You were told wrong. Find another noun instead of "chug".
CPU overhead is not a problem in described scenario, if it's
drive-related at all it would be the drive performance
itself, how long it takes to get the data from drive into
memory. Towards that end, it must be questioned WHY this
data wasn't already in memory.

It could easily be that your system simply needs more
memory. It could be that your video card has insufficient
memory for the game's settings. It could be that you have
apps running in the background, like a hardware monitor or
whatever, that has I/O to disk on regular intervals. Since
you make no mention of the specific environment, we can only
speculate that the HDD choice isn't a solution.

Even getting a drive TWICE as fast, which you certainly
won't unless currently running something ancient, would make
"chug" only 50% as long, which is still a chug, not smooth
gaming.


>Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
>fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
>performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
>wouldn't know; I've never owned either.

SCSI uses PCI bus, which didn't used to be much of a
bottleneck, but today's modern drives make it so. Even with
a 15K SCSI drive if your PCI bus is saturated it is
bottlenecking disk I/O... not always a problem but moreso
with network and sound events gaming.


> I do know that my current
>IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
>any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP.

You might know it, but provide no details of it. For all we
know your current drive setup could be 80% as fast as a
Raptor or SCSI in the environment needing the boost/fix/etc.

>I can't
>see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
>certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
>might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be
>nice to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the
>plunge.

You are assuming it's based around the IDE vs SCSI
interface. It isn't. Single-drive setups are faced with
other issues like where that interface is interfaced, to
southbridge. IDE is quite fine for single-drive use, even
PATA is as good as SCSI in this respect, it just happens
that the fastest modern Raptors are SATA.

Now at this point i should mention, I'm not just aiming to
tear apart your post, but to do so constructively. Plenty
of gamers use relatively older, slower drives and have no
"chug". Something else is at play here, and it's quite
possible that neither a Raptor or whatever-SCSI-you-choose,
will not resolve this chug problem.


>Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
>I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
>seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
>since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
>not much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited
>selection.

SCSI is not needed for gaming. It's wasted $ towards that
purpose. A Raptor is a good choice for a desktop PC, will
improve performance at many things and is a good upgrade if
your current drive is over 1 year old. If newer than that,
the cost-performance benefit must be weighed against how
much you need additional storage, reuse of the current drive
for another purpose.

So to more directly answer the question, get a Raptor but
don't expect it to solve the problem. Or, don't get a
Raptor if your motherboard needs a PCI based SATA card to
run it, just get a huge PATA drive instead and run game (or
whatever's accessing HDD) from size-constrained first
partition on the drive.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 1:32:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:<0tkjl0582h81tgku9q5tu05sog2j3gblaj@4ax.com>...
>
> You've either skipped a few steps in optimizing for gaming,
> or at least failed to mention these steps, in addtion to
> failing to mention the specific system. "Chug" is a
> meaningless word, precise description of the environment is
> necessary. Does friend's system play same game fine,
> without "chug"? If so, is friend's system IDENTICAL
> otherwise?

Chug has happened on every system I have ever experienced, all the
way up to the FX-53 2GB box sitting behind me. Although I admit
to only limited exposure to Linux. Chug simply happens. In an
earlier post, I provided the example of mp3 playback being
interrupted, reliably, reproducably, and semi-predictably. The
interruption is on the order of 1/30th of a second, but it
still counts as "chug". Basically, anything that causes an
anomaly like that (audio pausing for a split second, framerate
freezing for a split second, etc.), effectively underscoring a
poor or false multitasking system, counts in my book as "chug".
I have been able to correlate instances of chug with drive access
in nearly every identified case. Regardless of why drive access
seems to be the culprit, it is tempting to imagine that any
method by which the impact of drive access on the CPU can be
eliminated would be advantageous.

> You were told wrong. Find another noun instead of "chug".

Not here to offend anyone. What would you call it? I've given
a description above and it's not exactly an ambiguous phenomenon.

> Since
> you make no mention of the specific environment, we can only
> speculate that the HDD choice isn't a solution.

There wasn't a particular need to mention specs or applications
because the idea was to determine whether or not a SCSI controller
card would reduce whatever load was hypothetically responsible for
engendering the split-second performance blackouts of which I
speak. If it helps, I certainly have tried plenty of combinations
of hardware to see if the problem could ever be eliminated, with
the obvious exception of utilizing a SCSI solution.

> Now at this point i should mention, I'm not just aiming to
> tear apart your post, but to do so constructively. Plenty
> of gamers use relatively older, slower drives and have no
> "chug".

Back when I used to play FPS games, there was an option
introduced to Quake2 called "precache", which would, I suppose,
load all potentially relevant graphics into ram before playing a
match, as opposed to during gameplay. The purpose was to
circumvent the possibly catastrophic framerate stutterings which
tended to result from drive access. In this example, the
stuttering surely resulted from the game's inability to proceed
with gameplay prior to retrieving whatever data it was after,
but as I mentioned above, the problem can and does occur under
WinXP's supposedly multitasking environment.

Anyway, if SCSI isn't going to reduce the CPU load, then it's
moot.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 2:01:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

In message <rRj6d.449559$OB3.110289@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:

>> >> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
>> >> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
>> >> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
>> >> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
>> >> not much point in asking which Raptor to get,
>> >
>> > 74GB only.
>>
>> Why 74 only? Is there an issue (other than size) with the 36GB Drive?
>
>36 is slower.
>

Is the difference significant?


--
I understand what all the individual words mean despite the misspellings;
I just don't understand what they mean in that particular order.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 2:41:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Marc Brown wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<cjbefr01omt@news4.newsguy.com>...
>>
>> I doubt that the "chug"
>> you're seeing has anything to do with the CPU workload in accessing the
>> drive--copying files typically shows one percent utilization on my
>> machine.
>
> The problem doesn't seem to be that the CPU gets a big bite taken
> out of it, because I can personally confirm that this is not the
> case. Rather, it seems to be a Windows-originated inadequacy:
> Whenever the drive is accessed, the potential seems high that
> whatever process handles multitasking will choke. I experience
> it all the time, every day. Say, I'm listening to an mp3. Hardly
> CPU intensive, or demanding on the drive. But then I go type
> something and it's like the PC has to take a split second to load
> text graphics. No big deal, except that during that split second,
> mp3 playback pauses, resulting in a minor delay / pop in the audio.

Unless your player has adequate buffering, this would be the expected
result. It has nothing to do "whatever process handles multitasking"
"choking". The MP3 is being read from the drive. The text is being read
from the drive. Only one thing can be read from the drive at a time--to
read one thing it must stop reading something else.

> A better example: FPS games used to (and maybe still do) allow one
> to "precache" all data associated with a given level before
> beginning the level. Why? Because, regardless of whether or not
> one suspected that drive access was the culprit, the simple _fact_
> was that the games would pause whenever something that hadn't been
> already loaded into ram was suddenly required.

Since the only way something gets loaded into RAM is to read it off he
drive, drive access is necessarily the culprit.

> Absolutely
> intolerable in a FPS game, hence the fix. I think drive access
> has everything to do with the "chug".

But not in the way that you seem to think.

> The only thing I'm not
> clear on is whether a proper SCSI controller card will work to
> reduce the phenomenon by preventing the CPU from having to force
> everything to pause while it taps the drive.

Since the pause is caused by the game waiting for data to be read from the
drive, and since that is a limitation of the physical structure of the
drive, a SCSI host adapter of any kind will not solve your problem.

>> Personally I'd max out the RAM on the machine before I tried a faster
>> drive.
>
> Unfortunately, it is known, at least to those who visit forums
> relating to performance and overclocking, that adding more than
> 1GB of ram actually tends to have a negative impact on performance.
> I do of course refer to day-to-day and/or gaming performance, and
> not, say, Photoshop performance.

In that case, your problem is insoluble.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 3:10:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"DevilsPGD" <theone@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:1bl6d.186169$yk.30606@news.easynews.com...
> In message <rRj6d.449559$OB3.110289@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> >> >> I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal
> >> >> seek time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card,
> >> >> since apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's
> >> >> not much point in asking which Raptor to get,
> >> >
> >> > 74GB only.
> >>
> >> Why 74 only? Is there an issue (other than size) with the 36GB Drive?
> >
> >36 is slower.
> >
>
> Is the difference significant?

It's more than the cylinder size difference but the 36GB isn't slow but it
may be slower than the Hitachi 7K400.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 3:19:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Marc Brown wrote:

> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:<0tkjl0582h81tgku9q5tu05sog2j3gblaj@4ax.com>...
>>
>> You've either skipped a few steps in optimizing for gaming,
>> or at least failed to mention these steps, in addtion to
>> failing to mention the specific system. "Chug" is a
>> meaningless word, precise description of the environment is
>> necessary. Does friend's system play same game fine,
>> without "chug"? If so, is friend's system IDENTICAL
>> otherwise?
>
> Chug has happened on every system I have ever experienced, all the
> way up to the FX-53 2GB box sitting behind me. Although I admit
> to only limited exposure to Linux. Chug simply happens. In an
> earlier post, I provided the example of mp3 playback being
> interrupted, reliably, reproducably, and semi-predictably. The
> interruption is on the order of 1/30th of a second, but it
> still counts as "chug". Basically, anything that causes an
> anomaly like that (audio pausing for a split second, framerate
> freezing for a split second, etc.), effectively underscoring a
> poor or false multitasking system, counts in my book as "chug".

Pausing to load data is not evidence of a poor or false multitasking system,
it is evidence of a single disk drive trying to serve two processes.

> I have been able to correlate instances of chug with drive access
> in nearly every identified case. Regardless of why drive access
> seems to be the culprit, it is tempting to imagine that any
> method by which the impact of drive access on the CPU can be
> eliminated would be advantageous.

The only way you can do that is to develop a storage device that can deliver
data faster than the CPU can accept it.

>> You were told wrong. Find another noun instead of "chug".
>
> Not here to offend anyone. What would you call it? I've given
> a description above and it's not exactly an ambiguous phenomenon.

Try a "pause". "Chug" is what a steam locomotive does going up a grade.

>> Since
>> you make no mention of the specific environment, we can only
>> speculate that the HDD choice isn't a solution.

> There wasn't a particular need to mention specs or applications
> because the idea was to determine whether or not a SCSI controller
> card would reduce whatever load was hypothetically responsible for
> engendering the split-second performance blackouts of which I
> speak.

Since those "blackouts" are not caused by "load" but by waiting for a disk
to deliver data the host adapter cannot help.

> If it helps, I certainly have tried plenty of combinations
> of hardware to see if the problem could ever be eliminated, with
> the obvious exception of utilizing a SCSI solution.
>
>> Now at this point i should mention, I'm not just aiming to
>> tear apart your post, but to do so constructively. Plenty
>> of gamers use relatively older, slower drives and have no
>> "chug".
>
> Back when I used to play FPS games, there was an option
> introduced to Quake2 called "precache", which would, I suppose,
> load all potentially relevant graphics into ram before playing a
> match, as opposed to during gameplay. The purpose was to
> circumvent the possibly catastrophic framerate stutterings which
> tended to result from drive access.

Yes, since everything is already loaded it is not necessary for the game to
wait for data to be read from the drive.

> In this example, the
> stuttering surely resulted from the game's inability to proceed
> with gameplay prior to retrieving whatever data it was after,
> but as I mentioned above, the problem can and does occur under
> WinXP's supposedly multitasking environment.

And it happens because multitasking does not make the drive deliver data any
faster.

> Anyway, if SCSI isn't going to reduce the CPU load, then it's
> moot.

If you investigate you will find that the CPU load is _lower_ when these
"chugs" occur than at other times because the CPU is idling waiting for the
disk to deliver data that it needs in order to continue processing.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 3:34:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:415901D0.3060706@prodigy.net
> Marc Brown wrote:
> > The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> > friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> > Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> > storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> > application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> > minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> > protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> > access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> > load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> > to no discernable "chug".
> >
> That's potentially true,

Nope.

[snip]
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 3:45:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:%2a6d.446644$OB3.411691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Tod" <no_spam_me@comcast.net> wrote in message news:h796d.62884$wV.4110@attbi_s54...
> >
> > "Marc Brown" retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9dc342ba.0409272055.43d29fa0@posting.google.com...
> > > The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> > > friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> > > Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> > > storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> > > application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> > > minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> > > protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> > > access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> > > load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> > > to no discernable "chug".
> >
> > Talking about a Western Digital Raptor Serial ATA drive, right ?
> >
> > In the past, one of SCSI advantages is that it took the load off the CPU for
> > SCSI device (hard drive, scanner, tape backup, etc) access.
>
> That has NEVER been true since EIDE/ATA HDs used DMA mode and that was
> OSR2 and NT4 SP4.
>
> > A SCSI controller is better at managing multiable SCSI (5 or 10 or
> > 15) devices at the same time
>
> Exactly, that's where that onboard smarts contributes..multiple devices.
> SCSI's onboard smarts does not help it be faster than 1 or 2 ATA HDs.
>
> > IDE/ATA controllers can handle one data request at a time
> > SCSI also has better ways of handling multiable data requests, which are
> > just now being added to the S-ATA (Data Queing ?).
>
> That contributes to performance on small record I/O database servers and NOT
> single user workstations.

> In fact all those extra features of SCSI inhibits
> optimal performance on a single user workstation.

Clueless. There is no such fact.

[snip]
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 5:04:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in message news:r3d6d.273097$Fg5.22374@attbi_s53
> Marc Brown wrote:
>
> > The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> > friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> > Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> > storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> > application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> > minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> > protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> > access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> > load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> > to no discernable "chug".
> >
> > Anyway, said friend seems convinced that the 74Mb Raptor is the
> > fastest possible drive out there, and would certainly offer better
> > performance than any SCSI solution I could come up with. I frankly
> > wouldn't know; I've never owned either. I do know that my current
> > IDE setup suffers from the "chug" mentioned above, pretty much at
> > any moment, apparently subject to the whim of Windows XP. I can't
> > see how a Raptor would significantly reduce this phenomenon, but I
> > certainly don't claim to be an expert. I do see how a SCSI setup
> > might at least theoretically help with such things, but it'd be nice
> > to see confirmation of my speculation before I take the plunge.
> >
> > Since I'm on the topic, what SCSI drive and / or controller might
> > I be well-advised in picking up? Targets are: 15k rpm, minimal seek
> > time, ~36GB for the drive, and no idea for the controller card, since
> > apparently nobody sells the things. Not even Newegg. There's not
> > much point in asking which Raptor to get, owing to the limited selection.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
>
> What matters for a good gamer PC is, in rough order of importance:
> 1. Memory capacity: at least 1GB, 2GB better, 4GB is best
> 2. Memory latency: insist on dual-channel, the faster the better
> 3. CPU chip speed: faster is better, 64b does not matter yet
> 4. Video card: see http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229
> 5. HD access time
>
> To focus on HD performance, after taking care of items 1-4 above, note
> that I listed access time as the key attribute -- not bandwidth. HD
> vendors tout bandwidth, usually advertising the irrelevant peak bandwidth
> instead of STR, but access time matters more

> for all but servers.

You do that on purpose, don't you Bob.
Adding unneccesary little tidbits and then getting them wrong.

> The access times for two performance leaders are: WDC Raptor 74GB SATA at
> 7.5 mS (4.5+3.0),

> and Seagate Cheetah 15K 73GB SCSI at 5.6 mS (3.6+2.0).

Must be an older Cheetah.

> SCSI is still the clear winner if you ignore cost; but, SATA is built-in
> on most good MBs these days,

> while a good SCSI HBA is pretty expensive
> (the Adaptec 29320ALP-R, for example, lists for ~$395).

But you don't need that one. An Ultra2 will do fine for single drive access.

>
> Note that WinXP did not have good support for SCSI. I don't know if SP2
> fixed the XP problems, and I'd not pay for SCSI without making very
> sure on that point.
>
> One highly proclaimed storage feature is command queueing. SCSI has had
> TCQ for years, SATA has NCQ in some hardware but limited driver support,
> and PATA just doesn't get it.

> CQ is very important for database and some storage Oserver workloads,

And OSes that do parallel IO.

> but it has near-zero value for a PC in a single-user environment

> (except, maybe, for some CAD and software development workloads).

And OSes that do parallel IO.

>
> Summary: buy a Raptor 74GB HD, or maybe a couple.
>
> Note that I don't work for WDC. I just fired up my new PC, and I put
> my money where my mouth is: 1GB of dual-channel RAM, and a 74GB Raptor.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 5:14:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:2ru9rgF1eujjmU2@uni-berlin.de...
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:%2a6d.446644$OB3.411691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > "Tod" <no_spam_me@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h796d.62884$wV.4110@attbi_s54...
> > >
> > > "Marc Brown" retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dc342ba.0409272055.43d29fa0@posting.google.com...
> > > > The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> > > > friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> > > > Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> > > > storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> > > > application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> > > > minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> > > > protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> > > > access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> > > > load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> > > > to no discernable "chug".
> > >
> > > Talking about a Western Digital Raptor Serial ATA drive, right ?
> > >
> > > In the past, one of SCSI advantages is that it took the load off the
CPU for
> > > SCSI device (hard drive, scanner, tape backup, etc) access.
> >
> > That has NEVER been true since EIDE/ATA HDs used DMA mode and that
was
> > OSR2 and NT4 SP4.
> >
> > > A SCSI controller is better at managing multiable SCSI (5 or 10 or
> > > 15) devices at the same time
> >
> > Exactly, that's where that onboard smarts contributes..multiple
devices.
> > SCSI's onboard smarts does not help it be faster than 1 or 2 ATA HDs.
> >
> > > IDE/ATA controllers can handle one data request at a time
> > > SCSI also has better ways of handling multiable data requests, which
are
> > > just now being added to the S-ATA (Data Queing ?).
> >
> > That contributes to performance on small record I/O database servers and
NOT
> > single user workstations.
>
> > In fact all those extra features of SCSI inhibits
> > optimal performance on a single user workstation.
>
> Clueless. There is no such fact.

Wacko. It is that extra overhead of SCSI that causes late model 15K RPM
SCSI HDs to fall into a tie with 10K RPM Raptors for best performance on a
single user workstation.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 5:15:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:cjcr780d19@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:SUj6d.449582$OB3.262112@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > The 74 GB Raptor is certainly no faster than the 74 GB 15K RPM SCSI
> > drives,
> > > but it is in the same performance league as the 10K RPM drives and a
good
> > > deal cheaper.
> >
> Correct.
>
> > On a single user workstation the Raptor IS the performance match of late
> > model triple cost 15K RPM SCSI HDs becuase of the extra command
processing
> > overhead of SCSI. Check the HD performance websites.
> >
> Back with your SCSI/IDE delusions, Ronnie?
>
> SCSI drives have faster processors and lower command overhead.

WRONG!
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 5:15:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:h1o6d.644274$Gx4.80532@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
> news:cjcr780d19@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > On a single user workstation the Raptor IS the performance match of late
> > > model triple cost 15K RPM SCSI HDs becuase of the extra command
> processing
> > > overhead of SCSI. Check the HD performance websites.
> > >
> > Back with your SCSI/IDE delusions, Ronnie?
> >
> > SCSI drives have faster processors and lower command overhead.
>
> WRONG!
>
RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!!
RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!!
September 29, 2004 5:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Folkert Rienstra wrote:
> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:415901D0.3060706@prodigy.net
>
>>Marc Brown wrote:
>>
>>>The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
>>>friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
>>>Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
>>>storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
>>>application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
>>>minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
>>>protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
>>>access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
>>>load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
>>>to no discernable "chug".
>>>
>>
>>That's potentially true,
>
>
> Nope.
>
> [snip]

Yep.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 5:25:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:415A0D22.6050509@prodigy.net...
> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
> > "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:415901D0.3060706@prodigy.net
> >
> >>Marc Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>>The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> >>>friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> >>>Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> >>>storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> >>>application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> >>>minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> >>>protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> >>>access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> >>>load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> >>>to no discernable "chug".
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's potentially true,
> >
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Yep.

Wrong, SCSI HBAs do NOT remove any kind of CPU load that ATA controllers
suffer from. There's no SCSI advantage there.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 7:16:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Marc Brown" <retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Chug has happened on every system I have ever experienced, all the
> way up to the FX-53 2GB box sitting behind me. Although I admit
> to only limited exposure to Linux. Chug simply happens. In an
> earlier post, I provided the example of mp3 playback being
> interrupted, reliably, reproducably, and semi-predictably. The
> interruption is on the order of 1/30th of a second, but it
> still counts as "chug". Basically, anything that causes an
> anomaly like that (audio pausing for a split second, framerate
> freezing for a split second, etc.), effectively underscoring a
> poor or false multitasking system, counts in my book as "chug".
> I have been able to correlate instances of chug with drive access
> in nearly every identified case. Regardless of why drive access
> seems to be the culprit, it is tempting to imagine that any
> method by which the impact of drive access on the CPU can be
> eliminated would be advantageous.

Depending on a number of things that 'chug' might not actually be due to CPU
access but bus bandwidth saturation. The DMA bursts to/from the HD could be
starving the CPU. Newer mobos using the more advanced chipsets and dual
channel RAM may not tend 'chug' so much.

I like to hear if you experience 'chugs' on a P4/800 HT CPU using dual
channel memory on an Intel 875 chipset mobo in XP.

> There wasn't a particular need to mention specs or applications
> because the idea was to determine whether or not a SCSI controller
> card would reduce whatever load was hypothetically responsible for
> engendering the split-second performance blackouts of which I
> speak.

There is NO theoretical reason to suspect that SCSI would behave any
different.

> If it helps, I certainly have tried plenty of combinations
> of hardware to see if the problem could ever be eliminated, with
> the obvious exception of utilizing a SCSI solution.

SCSI offers nothing special in this arena.
September 29, 2004 10:00:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:415A0D22.6050509@prodigy.net...
>
>>Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>>
>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:415901D0.3060706@prodigy.net
>
>>>>Marc Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
>>>>>friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
>>>>>Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
>>>>>storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
>>>>>application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
>>>>>minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
>>>>>protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
>>>>>access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
>>>>>load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
>>>>>to no discernable "chug".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's potentially true,
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>Yep.
>
>
> Wrong, SCSI HBAs do NOT remove any kind of CPU load that ATA controllers
> suffer from. There's no SCSI advantage there.
>
>
So SATA does access reordering?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 11:25:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:415A4F91.5000102@prodigy.net...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:415A0D22.6050509@prodigy.net...
> >
> >>Folkert Rienstra wrote:
> >>
> >>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:415901D0.3060706@prodigy.net
> >
> >>>>Marc Brown wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
> >>>>>friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> >>>>>Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> >>>>>storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> >>>>>application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> >>>>>minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> >>>>>protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> >>>>>access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> >>>>>load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> >>>>>to no discernable "chug".
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That's potentially true,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nope.
> >>>
> >>>[snip]
> >>
> >>Yep.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, SCSI HBAs do NOT remove any kind of CPU load that ATA
controllers
> > suffer from. There's no SCSI advantage there.
> >
> >
> So SATA does access reordering?

The issue was "SCSI controller card takes the load off the CPU during drive
access".
The above quote is false as it relates to any advantage over SATA. "access
reordering" is done onboard a SCSI HD and not the controller and has nothing
to do with the issue at hand.
September 29, 2004 6:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:415A4F91.5000102@prodigy.net...
>
>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:415A0D22.6050509@prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:415901D0.3060706@prodigy.net
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Marc Brown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
>>>>>>>friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
>>>>>>>Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
>>>>>>>storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
>>>>>>>application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
>>>>>>>minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
>>>>>>>protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
>>>>>>>access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
>>>>>>>load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
>>>>>>>to no discernable "chug".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's potentially true,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>Yep.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong, SCSI HBAs do NOT remove any kind of CPU load that ATA
>
> controllers
>
>>>suffer from. There's no SCSI advantage there.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So SATA does access reordering?
>
>
> The issue was "SCSI controller card takes the load off the CPU during drive
> access".
> The above quote is false as it relates to any advantage over SATA. "access
> reordering" is done onboard a SCSI HD and not the controller and has nothing
> to do with the issue at hand.
>
>
Whatever. I doubt the OP cares whether it's done on the controller
card or the disk drive electronics, but perhaps (s)he does.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 7:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:31:19 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
wrote:


>>>So SATA does access reordering?
>>
>>
>> The issue was "SCSI controller card takes the load off the CPU during drive
>> access".
>> The above quote is false as it relates to any advantage over SATA. "access
>> reordering" is done onboard a SCSI HD and not the controller and has nothing
>> to do with the issue at hand.
>>
>>
>Whatever. I doubt the OP cares whether it's done on the controller
>card or the disk drive electronics, but perhaps (s)he does.

May not make any difference if the sole problem was a game
waiting to load a file, not multiple accesses.
September 29, 2004 9:17:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

kony wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:31:19 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>So SATA does access reordering?
>>>
>>>
>>>The issue was "SCSI controller card takes the load off the CPU during drive
>>>access".
>>>The above quote is false as it relates to any advantage over SATA. "access
>>>reordering" is done onboard a SCSI HD and not the controller and has nothing
>>>to do with the issue at hand.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Whatever. I doubt the OP cares whether it's done on the controller
>>card or the disk drive electronics, but perhaps (s)he does.
>
>
> May not make any difference if the sole problem was a game
> waiting to load a file, not multiple accesses.

Yes, as with all such queries in the abstract, the devil is in the
details. The only way to proceed with certainty is to monitor and
analyze the specific system in question and identify and address its
bottlenecks. If disk access isn't an issue, then throwing money at
the disk subsystem will be wasted.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 29, 2004 10:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

CJT wrote:

> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:415A4F91.5000102@prodigy.net...
>>
>>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>>
>>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:415A0D22.6050509@prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>news:415901D0.3060706@prodigy.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Marc Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem. A
>>>>>>>>friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
>>>>>>>>Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
>>>>>>>>storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
>>>>>>>>application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
>>>>>>>>minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
>>>>>>>>protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
>>>>>>>>access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
>>>>>>>>load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
>>>>>>>>to no discernable "chug".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's potentially true,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, SCSI HBAs do NOT remove any kind of CPU load that ATA
>>
>> controllers
>>
>>>>suffer from. There's no SCSI advantage there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>So SATA does access reordering?
>>
>>
>> The issue was "SCSI controller card takes the load off the CPU during
>> drive access".
>> The above quote is false as it relates to any advantage over SATA.
>> "access reordering" is done onboard a SCSI HD and not the controller and
>> has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
>>
>>
> Whatever. I doubt the OP cares whether it's done on the controller
> card or the disk drive electronics, but perhaps (s)he does.

Regardless of where it occurs what leads you to believe that it will have
any significant effect in the circumstances described? The game's reading
something, it can't continue until it has whatever it's reading. I can't
see where access reordering is going to make the difference between pausing
and not pausing.

The solution to the problem is enough RAM that the game can cache everything
it needs, but the OP seems to think that more RAM is going to hurt his
performance, which suggests that he's using an outdated operating system.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 30, 2004 1:34:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:fukll0575itolda5bda0o5onr356c0pffc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:31:19 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>>So SATA does access reordering?
> >>
> >>
> >> The issue was "SCSI controller card takes the load off the CPU during
drive
> >> access".
> >> The above quote is false as it relates to any advantage over SATA.
"access
> >> reordering" is done onboard a SCSI HD and not the controller and has
nothing
> >> to do with the issue at hand.
> >>
> >>
> >Whatever. I doubt the OP cares whether it's done on the controller
> >card or the disk drive electronics, but perhaps (s)he does.
>
> May not make any difference if the sole problem was a game
> waiting to load a file, not multiple accesses.

Precisely. Reordering never have anything to do with the issue of this
thread.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 30, 2004 3:15:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:A%n6d.450777$OB3.355775@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:2ru9rgF1eujjmU2@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:%2a6d.446644$OB3.411691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> > > "Tod" <no_spam_me@comcast.net> wrote in message news:h796d.62884$wV.4110@attbi_s54...
> > > > "Marc Brown" retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9dc342ba.0409272055.43d29fa0@posting.google.com...
> > > > > The question isn't as pointless and rhetorical as it may seem.
> > > > > A friend of mine can't get over the cool factor of his shiny new
> > > > > Raptor. I, on the other hand, have been investigating SCSI as my
> > > > > storage platform of choice. In both cases, gaming is the target
> > > > > application. In researching SCSI options, my primary aim is to
> > > > > minimize in-game "chug", which is to say the brief (or sometimes
> > > > > protracted) performance pauses which seem to coincide with drive
> > > > > access. I have been told that the SCSI controller card takes the
> > > > > load off the CPU during drive access, with the result being little
> > > > > to no discernable "chug".
> > > >
> > > > Talking about a Western Digital Raptor Serial ATA drive, right ?
> > > >
> > > > In the past, one of SCSI advantages is that it took the load off the
> > > > CPU for SCSI device (hard drive, scanner, tape backup, etc) access.
> > >
> > > That has NEVER been true since EIDE/ATA HDs used DMA mode
> > > and that was OSR2 and NT4 SP4.
> > >
> > > > A SCSI controller is better at managing multiable SCSI (5 or 10
> > > > or 15) devices at the same time
> > >
> > > Exactly, that's where that onboard smarts contributes..multiple devices.
> > > SCSI's onboard smarts does not help it be faster than 1 or 2 ATA HDs.
> > >
> > > > IDE/ATA controllers can handle one data request at a time
> > > > SCSI also has better ways of handling multiable data requests,
> > > > which are just now being added to the S-ATA (Data Queing ?).
> > >
> > > That contributes to performance on small record I/O database servers
> > > and NOT single user workstations.
> >
> > > In fact all those extra features of SCSI inhibits
> > > optimal performance on a single user workstation.
> >
> > Clueless. There is no such fact.
>
> Wacko. It is that extra overhead of SCSI that causes late model 15K RPM
> SCSI HDs to fall into a tie with 10K RPM Raptors for best performance on a
> single user workstation.

No, your holy cluelessness, it is the smaller platters and not so maxed out
density in order to minimalize access time that is tying them in on STR.

The 15k rpm SCSI drives will run circles around a Raptor on non sequential
access. The Raptor will be 40% slower on random single sector access.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 30, 2004 3:25:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:cjegl402dl1@enews4.newsguy.com
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:h1o6d.644274$Gx4.80532@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message news:cjcr780d19@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > > On a single user workstation the Raptor IS the performance match of
> > > > late model triple cost 15K RPM SCSI HDs becuase of the extra com-
> > > > mand processing overhead of SCSI. Check the HD performance websites.
> > > >
> > > Back with your SCSI/IDE delusions, Ronnie?
> > >
> > > SCSI drives have faster processors and lower command overhead.
> >
> > WRONG!
> >
> RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!!
> RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!! RIGHT!!!

It's bloody irrelevant.
Command overhead only affects how much bus bandwidth headroom is needed
to not have its transfers slowed down.

Only when command overhead is starting full track accesses to cost more
than a single rev will command overhead be responsible for slowing STR down.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 30, 2004 3:30:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

In message <415A4F91.5000102@prodigy.net> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>> Wrong, SCSI HBAs do NOT remove any kind of CPU load that ATA controllers
>> suffer from. There's no SCSI advantage there.
>>
>>
>So SATA does access reordering?

IIRC, the spec allows reordering, but I'm not sure if any controllers
support this functionality yet.


--
I know what "Cheese" is, and I know what "Whiz" is...
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 30, 2004 3:46:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"DevilsPGD" <theone@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:hAH6d.2343427$6p.397275@news.easynews.com...
> In message <415A4F91.5000102@prodigy.net> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Wrong, SCSI HBAs do NOT remove any kind of CPU load that ATA
controllers
> >> suffer from. There's no SCSI advantage there.
> >>
> >>
> >So SATA does access reordering?
>
> IIRC, the spec allows reordering, but I'm not sure if any controllers
> support this functionality yet.

For the writeback case for HDs ATA/EIDE HDs have been doing reordering for
some time now.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
October 1, 2004 2:11:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:8d73f11516f8fcb31215fb4d7360ea7b@dizum.com...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:17:32 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>"Marc Brown" <retsa2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>There's
> >> not much point in asking which Raptor to get,
> >
> >74GB only.
>
> A store near me sells a 36GB version. WD360GD

That's slightly slower.
!