Re: hardware quote comments?
> No way! Those drives are very much worth the money. How can you
> compare a 7200 RPM IDE disk to a 10k RPM SCSI disk? IDE is cheap for a
> reason. It's junk. Don't put junk in such a nice machine!
I like the evidence you gave in support of your argument...oh wait...you
didn't give any evidence.
How can I recommend ATAPI? Quite easily. I didn't notice that there were two
disks on the invoice. One 7200RPM ATAPI 40-80GB drive is better and cheaper
than one 18GB SCSI at 10000RPM. But if it's two drives being compared...
What is the biggest advantage of SCSI? If he has a 160MB/s channel, he can split
that between multiple devices, whereas on an ATAPI controller, the device
blocks even if it doesn't use all the bandwidth. Big deal. He has two
harddrives probably to be configured in RAID 0.
What's the transfer rate off of one of those SCSI drives? Maybe 20MB/s,
25MB/s if he's lucky. Those are *small* drives. The 222% data density
increase from going to paired 40GB IDE drives is a much bigger factor in
transfer rate than a mere 39% increase in spindel speed. Those disks have a
transfer rate of 30MB/s each. Or more for the 60 and 80.
You're correct that IDE is junk, much like SCSI-2 is junk. Both are
incredibly old technology that nobody should be using today. But I was
recommending ATAPI UDMA/133 drives. Those are not junk! And in a RAID 0
configuration, they will provide similar throughput, and twice the storage,
for a small fraction of the price.
Equal, better, cheaper...hmm...let me think about that...t
Or he could go up to a pair of 60GB or 80GB ATAPI drives in RAID 0 and blow
away the SCSI performance and probably still save money.
I have a machine with a four year old SCSI drive and an equally dated ATAPI
drive. The ATAPI provides better performance, and cost one third the price.
My SCSI controller cost as much as the ATAPI hard drive!
Reply to: