[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Installation with SCSI Drive

On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 00:26, Nick Lidakis wrote:
> Ronald wrote:
> > I often try out (installing) Linux distributions, so
> > this is an I/O intensive operation (writing to the drive).
> >
> > Would using SCSI drive significantly improve the installing
> > time? (halve it?)
> >
> > FYI currently I use Seagate 7200.7 80 GB and to get
> > full 3 GB install takes around ~10 to 20 minutes.
> >
> > Motherboard is Abit KG7-Raid which doesn't have inbuilt
> > SCSI adapter, so I have to buy a separate adapter.
> > CPU is Athlon XP 2400+ with 512 MB RAM.
> >
> > And the drive I want to get is probably
> > Seagate Cheetah 15K.3: 18 GB, 15,000 prm Ultra320 SCSI
> > http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1081,619,00.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ronald
> >
> >
> I was wondering the same and was about to post a similar message to the
> list. I feel as if my up-to-date Debian  box (P4 3GHZ / Intel 875PBZ / 1
> GIG RAM / WD ATA 133 Caviar SE) is somehow baing held back bit its on
> board controller and PATA hard disk, even though I have this disk
> optimized via hdparm. I feel the system to be jerky/slugish when opening
> up multiple applications at a time and when copying files. I was also
> hoping for fatser boot times via a SCSI system but always read
> conflicting reports regarding the pros of scsi on the desktop.

Using SCSI will probably increase boot time rather than reduce it. You
will have to wait several seconds for your SCSI controller's ROM to load
and detect each attached device. The kernel takes a while to redetect
SCSI devices during bootup as well (this can be disabled, I think, but I
dont remember how. I never bothered.)

> To add more confusion to the mix, I can't seem to Google any documents
> regarding which SCSI contollers would be more appropriate for a Linux
> desktop system.
> So far, I think LSI's LSIU160 (around 30 dollars) might be a good
> candidate. I don't know whether I can partner this with a smallish u320
> drive.  If I can pick up a decent used U160 drive on eBay cheap, it
> might be worth the money to try out SCSI for myself. If anyting, SCSI is
> supposed to be more reliable in the long run.
> Any other comments form current Debian users with SCSI on their desktop
> boxes would be appreciated.

I dont do SCSI anymore. Its cost/performance ratio is so high that it
really doesnt make sense for personal use. If its performance you're
after, buy several IDE drives and a few controllers if necessary and do
IDE raid0 or raid5. You can do this for the cost of a small (in
comparison) scsi drive + controller.

If you buy old, used SCSI HDs or controllers, their reliability is
suspect. If you buy new SCSI controllers, the price is outrageous. 

Summary: Buy new PATA/SATA stuff. Its less expensive to purchase/replace
and provides (for the most part) comparable performance. 

just my HO,


Reply to: