Interesting: FT100 beats Cheetah 15,000 rpm SCSI

[Dr Mordrid]

Game PC did some tests matching up the Promise Fasttrak100 using IBM 75GPX ATA100 drives vs a Cheetah 15,000 rpm SCSI 160 drive. Guess who won?

http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardwa...etahx15&page=2

This parallels my experience with the Fasttrak100/IBM 75GPX combo: it's faster than a cat with its tail on fire.

Dr. Mordrid

[Elie]

Hi Doc,

I don't see this test as a fair comaprison between a single scsi drive vs a raid configuration of any kind.

I bet you anything if I setup a hardware scsi raid 0 with 10 cheetahs vs the fasttrak's raid setup, that the scsi raid will beat the fasttrak hands down simply because the scsi raid will be totally hardware based using an onboard RISC processor.

Like I said you cannot compare a raid vs a single drive solution with benchmarks, because the raid is splitting the data across x amount of drives vs the same data being transfered to one drive, you know the story, still though my FT66 rocks and I think is a good alternative to a scsi raid solution which costs mucho $$$$$$$

Regards,
Elie

[Eric VanHeest]

----------------------------------------
I don't see this test as a fair comaprison between a single scsi drive vs a raid configuration of any kind.
----------------------------------------

A more valid comparison is:

Give me your best SCSI setup (RAID if you want, but include the price of the card) for $x. Now put together an IDE array (include the cost of the FastTrak) for $x or less, and see which one kicks the most tail.

(hint: The FastTrak array will win every time, and give you far more drive space as well. IDE is so much cheaper that it isn't even a comparison.)

[Elie]

Eric, your missing the point, cost is not the issue here, of coarse the FT will win in this case because of it's cost and the cost of IDE drives today. (I have a FT 66 with 4x20gig maxtors, why did I choose this? obviosly because of cost)

What I'm simply saying is related to benchamrks i.e. transfer rates cannot be tested between a single drive vs a raid regardless of what it is..ide or scsi.

OK... Let's not worry about cost at this point, gamepc.com should've tested a SCSI raid from let's say adaptec with 4 seagate Cheetah 15,000 rpm SCSI 160 drives VS a FT 100 with 4 of the fastest IDE 100 drives around (maxtor or IBM perhaps) then if the FT100 wins then thats that
Please don't get me wrong, I love my FT 66, and I think Promise has a great future, it's just the way they did the review, kinda blew my mind

Cheers,
Elie



[This message has been edited by Elie (edited 23 August 2000).]

[Eric VanHeest]

That may be your point, but it is not mine. Only in vague theory can you not concern yourself with costs. Saying that "two drives in a RAID configuration" is a good comparison only to "two drives in a RAID configuration" with no other factors involved is nearly meaningless. (As meaningless as saying "this drive is better than this one because it is cheaper" with no further qualifications, as a matter of fact.)

[wkulecz]

IMHO SCSI of any flavor is largely a waste of time and money on win9x *unless* you need more devices than IDE is capable of.

The advantages of SCSI really only show up on systems running NT4, w2k, or UNIX/Linux where advanced features like scatter-gather transfers are put to use. Even then, it can be hard to see the difference with workstation apps.

Unless you got money to burn, or need more devices that can be crammed into PCI slots filled with Fasttracks or IDE controllers, forget about SCSI on win9x.

--wally.

[Pertti]

wkulez,

There is one exception, CD-R/CD-RW/DVD/CD and other non-HD peripherals work better with a SCSI adapter, they don't cost much more than the IDE counterparts, and you can use just about whatever cheap SCSI controller to connect them to (doesn't have to be U160/U2/UW)

The SCSI HD:s on the otherhand are way too expensive just for the "Bragging rights"

Pertti

[Dr Mordrid]

I don't even find DVD and CDRW that much of an issue. I have my Toshiba DVD reader as Sec. Master and the HP CDRW as Sec. Slave and haven't had any problems copying CD's or anything else.

Of course that may be because I buffer the data on copies through the first RAID0 array on the Fasttrak100

Dr. Mordrid

[dgcom]

Hmm.. I don't see, actually, where FT100 is a winner. In transfer rate? Ok. But that's not all. Transfer rate of that single X15 drive is fast enough for video capture.
But look at CPU utilization and access time numbers.
It's pretty clear, if you'll make the same setup of two X15 drives, it will leave FT100+IBM HDDs far behind.

Cost issue:
Yeah, this is an issue. For home users. But for those, who make money, using SCSI drives, it isn't...

DGCom

[This message has been edited by dgcom (edited 23 August 2000).]

[Eric VanHeest]

---------------------------------------
Yeah, this is an issue. For home users. But for those, who make money, using SCSI drives, it isn't...
---------------------------------------

I'd be willing to be that the vast majority of people "who make money" (who is buying RAID arrays but not making money, I wonder?) are still concerned about whether the extra they're spending on "the best" is actually giving them a noticable difference in performance with what they're doing.

I know there are people who want what is claimed to be "the best" even if it costs them 5 times what the next best is, only gives them 1.3x the performance, and drops in price dramatically in the next few months (processors, anyone?) but I personally call those people freaks. No offense.

[AlgoRhythm]

I second the motion about CPU utilization.
My home machine (P3 550) is totally SCSI, and I can be running stuff around on Zip, Jaz, HD, burning a CD and watching a DVD (Yes, I've actually done this), and my CPU utilization hardly does a thing.

But my machine at work (P3 650) and ATA HD, if I'm doing anything with heavy drive activity, the CPU goes insane...

And on the other hand, two ATA drives better beat one SCSI drive. Although in some of those benchmarks the Cheetah still held its own.

AlgoRhythm

[wkulecz]

Pertti,

Got to agree with Doc, A couple of years ago I might have agreed with you, but ATAPI has improved greatly since then.

I have an 8x SCSI CD-RW in one system (short of IDE ports and it needs SCSI for my Nikon scanner) and another with 8x IDE CD-RW. The internal SCSI model is $50+ more than the identical IDE model not counting the controller. No differneces worth anything near $50 as long as you have an IDE port available for it.

--wally.

[Eric VanHeest]

--------------------------------------
But my machine at work (P3 650) and ATA HD, if I'm doing anything with heavy drive activity, the CPU goes insane...
--------------------------------------

A pair of drives on a FastTrak uses very little CPU, and I've never seen a drive on a standard ATA channel with DMA being properly used eat up much processor either (maybe 6% of a machine in the 500 MHz range). On the other hand, if the ATA drive is using PIO, processor usage is 100% constantly while the drive is in use.

[Dr Mordrid]

My experience exactly.

The new ATA100's, at least the IBM 75GXP's I'm using, show very little of the CPU hogging of past ATA standards when in DMA mode. 2 IBM's in a FT100 RAID0 array give me 68 mb/s sustained writes. To get the same out of SCSI's would cost a bundle.

I don't know about other folks, but if a rig can provide high performance AND saves 1/2 of the storage budget I'm all for it.

One other question for the SCSI'ers: what will be the excuse when SerialATA hits and each drive has it's own Master connection and blistering speed to boot?

Dr. Mordrid

[dgcom]

--------------------------------------
what will be the excuse when SerialATA hits and each drive has it's own Master connection and blistering speed to boot?
--------------------------------------
I think, there will be no much speed difference between SCSI and Serial ATA then. Just a price.

Seriously, I love SCSI just because I can have MANY devices connected. Right now I have 3 U2W SCSI drives, SCSI DVD, SCSI CD-RW, SCSI Magneto-optical disk drive. SCSI scanner. They fit (and work) perfectly onto AHA-2940U2W. I also have one IDE drive. So, if I decide to go for IDE only, I'll need 4 IDE prorts, which is possible, of cause.

I have VERY good expirience with SCSI for the last 6 years...

There is another drawback of SCSI HDDs - they are heating ususally much more then IDE. That's probably because of higher RPM (10K-15K).

But for me, there is another benefit i mentioned before - faster seek time. This PC is multipurpose - not only VE, but a lot of other stuff... And I'm running w2k, by the way...

I really didn't pay much for this setup - I bought 2 WD Vantage SCSI U2W HDDs - they are much cheaper then Seagate's 10K rpm drives, but still provide high perfomance.

Don't forget - sustained reads/writes is not all in disk I/O performance.

Once Serial ATA hit the market and will be widely supported, I'll probably move in that direction.

Thanks.
DGCom.

P.S. Being sysadmin, I don't feel like loosing entire 120/240GB raid 0 because of single HDD fail. RAID5 or nothing.

[This message has been edited by dgcom (edited 26 August 2000).]