Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SCSI to stata??

Last response: in Storage
Share
October 8, 2009 8:24:13 PM

Hello everyone, im going to buy 2 scsi drives: Seagate Cheetah 36ES 36GB 10000rpm, my MB is Asus P5Q3.

Any smart way of connecting them economically?

Im planning to go RAID 0 with these, i hope i wont be losing too much speed.
Otherwise i am open to any fast HD that will suit me in a raid 0 setup.

ThX

More about : scsi stata

a b G Storage
October 9, 2009 4:57:06 AM

Besides a U320 SCSI controller supporting RAID that plugs into PCIe (not PCI-X), I'm afraid there's not much other option. And Cheetah 36ES is a very old generation of 10k drives, probably would the same speed as most 7200rpm 1TB of today in normal desktop usage.

Do you have a good reason of wanting RAID0? It's not going to help vastly in average everyday usage (with HDDs anyway) unless it's meant for something with lots of sequential read/writes.
October 9, 2009 10:41:12 AM

Thanks for the info, il probably buy a pair of new 10krpm disks. If you have any in mind im open to suggestions, i prefer small in capacity though.

I think raid 0 will help me out a bit, i am a graphics designer and i would like to experience no-lag in photoshop, i put my money on fast ram and raid 0, in order to have a little faster system when using software.
Related resources
October 9, 2009 11:23:28 AM

WD RAPTOR WD360ADFD 36GB, costs 55euros here in Greece.

Is it worth the money?
Anyone knows what kind of improvement i will be seeing in raid 0 setup?

My system is core 2 duo 2,9, MB P5Q3, 1800mhz 3g ram, sapphire 4850 HD and planning for a raid 0 setup.
a b G Storage
October 9, 2009 11:43:09 AM

For Photoshop the first priority is to spend them on RAM. They are relatively cheap now, 6-8GB of DDR3 can be had for under $150 which is more than enough when working with upto 5layers of 24MP TIFF images (just one of my hobbies...) and a Lynnfield/Bloomfield quadcore.
Although PS still wants you to assign a scratch space for it, with enough RAM no disk drive activity will occur (and therefor no slow down).

If you're concerned about $/GB then consider a single 150GB VelociRaptor. Otherwise a 60GB Indilinx controller based SSD (~$2.7/GB now) would be the ideal choice. For storage slap a couple of terabyte drives together and keep an external or two for backups.

Older 10k/15k including WD Raptor were simply not designed to perform at best in desktop environment. From $/performance perspective they're no better than high density 7200rpm drives of todays generation.
October 9, 2009 12:13:32 PM

I think il let ssd alone for now, reading too many problems when multitasking with them.

Thank you for helping, i think i will go with 2x 7200rpm raid 0, probably one of the latest seagate models.
a c 127 G Storage
October 9, 2009 1:56:18 PM

Problems when multitasking with SSD? That's nonesense, maybe the OCZ Core with JMicron controller; which had write latency issues. But if you want speed there really is no other option than SSD. You won't get close to this by using RAID0.

For your system drive, if you can afford a good SSD like Intel X25-M G2 80GB, you really should think about your options.
a c 127 G Storage
October 9, 2009 1:57:45 PM

The only real disadvantage of SSDs is the limited space you get for your money. But as you say this is not important, and you want speed, there really is no other option than SSD imo.
October 9, 2009 2:31:39 PM

The X25-M G2 80GB costs 200eu ~294$.

2x RAPTOR WD360ADFD 36GB 10000RPM costs 112eu ~164$.

Also going for 2x 7200rpm is almost the same price as the small raptors.


I dont know why but i still prefer the two raptors in raid 0

The X25-M G2 max write speed is 170mb/s
read speed is 250mb/s

Anyone knows how the 2 Raptors compare?
a c 127 G Storage
October 9, 2009 2:53:51 PM

X25-M speed is about 30.000 IOps
Single HDD speed: 150 IOps
RAID0 HDD speed: 220 IOps

Still many orders of magnitude faster. MB/s is not relevant here; sequential access is fast already but non-sequential access is not - when using HDDs. So its latency and not throughput that is most important to generic performance.
!