Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SCSI Fujitsu 73.5GB 15K 8MB or HITACHI 73GB 15K 16MB

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 17, 2006 2:37:28 PM

Am interested for these SCSI HD's to have my windowsXP run on. I always keep my pc for 2-3 years before changing anything so I am aiming for something good that will last. The board will be the Asus P5W DH Deluxe.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/SCSI_Drives.html

http://www.misco.co.uk/productinformation/~100818~/HITA...

Does these HD's worth their money? Is the increase in speed noticeable? Am I goign to need an external SCISI controller? Anyone has reviewed them?[/b]
Am willing to spend £200 if they are well worth.
August 17, 2006 3:02:38 PM

You'll need a SCSI controller of course. Go for a Raptor: it costs less than half (considering you don't need the extra SCSI controller that is much more expensive than an SATA) and you'll notice no difference at all in Windows.
Anyway of you want to go SCSI choose the Hitachi: not for the 16MB, it's useless, but because has lower latencies and it's more reliable.
August 17, 2006 3:04:57 PM

Regarding the Raptor which one you mean? I spare no expense
August 17, 2006 3:36:27 PM

Remaining in the same size the WD740: it's a good 74GB 10krpm, 7ms access same mechanics of the 10k WD SCSI drives sold till 2004 and it sells for under 200$.
Or you can go with the WD150AD, the 150GB version: it's a little faster and double sized.
August 17, 2006 5:48:30 PM

Quote:

Anyway of you want to go SCSI choose the Hitachi: not for the 16MB, it's useless, but because has lower latencies and it's more reliable.


Why is 16mb useless?

I am defiantly into SCSI drives over the Rapotor's, but the cost is way up there with SCSI. I've run all my set up on refurbished drives and had no problems in the past 8 years. My first set up with two 18gig 15k Seagate U320(80pin) drives only cost me 350 bucks ( got a 29320lpr from ebay). But active cooling raises the cost and noise a lot. I'm moving on to serial attached SCSI drives this year, now thats fast stuff.
August 17, 2006 6:24:21 PM

16mb cache is of no use at all, you can measure a 3% maximum performance increase with linux and 0.5% with windows but if the controller has NCQ capabilities you'll notice no improvement at all.
On the choice for SCSI over Raptor... do your calculations: with non-server class applications (no DB) and the $hit Windows OS you'll notice quite none performance difference between 15k SCSI and 10k SATA, I personally would consider costs only, but it's only my opinion, the choice is up to you obviously :-)
August 17, 2006 7:01:45 PM

Where are you gathering your benches from? But SCSI's are pigs when it come to money and maintainability, I agree the 15ks does improve seek times. I like the SCSI for my fedora system. It kicks ass over other SATA 10ks. And my dad can kick your dads but...lol
August 17, 2006 7:10:09 PM

My benches are from personal experience as DB server admin and taken from several tests THG did on high performance HD in past.
The only troubles with SCSI drives is the additional cost for the drive itself and for the controller and of course they're usually louder because nobody takes care if a server located in a datacenter sounds like an F16 during take-off :-)
I love 15k SCSI drives of course, they are fast and reliable, but I'd never use them for a home or office PC, I think the cost and noise doesn't balance the performance gain.
But, again, it's my personal opinion :-)
August 30, 2006 4:30:34 PM

Quote:
What exactly is the purpose of your system?


I finally went for a 74GB ADFD raptor. What am thinking now is if it really worth getting a second one for a RAID 0 set up. Would the increase in perfomance be noticeable to justfiy the cost?

I use my pc mainly for Maya 3D, Dreamweaver and simple daily tasks.
!