On my two PCs, I run the OS off of smaller SCSI drives, and use cheap(er) IDE drives for mass data storage. One PC has a Quantum Atlas 10k II (10k RPM) 18 GB SCSI drive, the other a Fujitsu MAP3367NP 10k RPM 36 GB SCSI drive.
Well, I realized that these two drives are the biggest noisemakers in my system. I don't think they are causing vibration so much as the sound of them spinning is offensive. Both have a definate whine to them. In fact, the Quantum makes my Western Digital WD1200JB seem quiet by comparison!
I don't care too much about seeking/reading/writing noise, it's just the idle spinning I'd like to be as quiet as possible.
While we're on the subject of SCSI drives... the reason I'm using these is because my gut feeling tells me that they should be more reliable. (Performance is a non-issue here.) In the various stuffs I've read over the years, SCSI drives just seem like they're built better: they almost always come with a five year warranty (as opposed to one or three on IDE drives), they typically have a higher MTBF than IDE, and they are intended for use in a machine that runs 24x7 (as both of mine do).
At the same time, however, the price gradient between SCSI and IDE has become so great that I'm beginning to think my money might be better spent on a sound backup system (beyond CDR), and just ditch the SCSI all together.
So, I'm really asking two questions here: (1) are there quiet SCSI drives out there, and (2) should I even stay with SCSI?
Thanks!
Matt
quiet SCSI drives?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
matt_garman
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:35 am
- Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
- Contact:
(1) No and (2) No. SATA is what you should be using. The Samsung P80s come with 3 year warranties and if you're willing to pay the cash the new 74GB Raptor has no idle whine and a five year warranty.
Last edited by Bar81 on Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
From what I heard, Seagate SCSI are the quietest ones ... but I only heard them in server rooms.
I had the same dilemna as you, a 2 years ago, and I just take all my "big" scsi HDD ( 3*9+2*18 ), and put them into a "backup" server. This server is hosted at a remote location (thanks to my employer) and is rsync'ing the "Documents" part of my home server.
This home server is running 24/7 in my apartment and has a huge (and quiet) IDE HDD. It is serving as p2p, media, files, web, mail, some other internet services. Both servers are, of course, running Linux
To be complete, the "My Documents" folders of my (and my GF) computers are sync'ed to the home server using samba.
Now, if you cannot move your reliable server in a remote location or in your basement, you're out of luck
Otherwise, building a new quiet server is cheap ...
I had the same dilemna as you, a 2 years ago, and I just take all my "big" scsi HDD ( 3*9+2*18 ), and put them into a "backup" server. This server is hosted at a remote location (thanks to my employer) and is rsync'ing the "Documents" part of my home server.
This home server is running 24/7 in my apartment and has a huge (and quiet) IDE HDD. It is serving as p2p, media, files, web, mail, some other internet services. Both servers are, of course, running Linux
To be complete, the "My Documents" folders of my (and my GF) computers are sync'ed to the home server using samba.
Now, if you cannot move your reliable server in a remote location or in your basement, you're out of luck
Otherwise, building a new quiet server is cheap ...
-
hyperslug
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:38 pm
- Location: US > NC > Wake Forest
Hah, well the Quantum Atlas 10k II is noisy even for SCSI. SR's measurements seem to indicate this drive is one of the quieter ones: http://storagereview.com/articles/20020 ... 8LW_6.html
Wow - "QUIET" SCSI drives?
To understand my amusement at such a question, understand that SCSI has always been about PERFORMANCE. Hence, it's popularity among servers (along with its hot-plug ability).
For "nearly ever" IDE couldn't hold its own, compared to SCSI. S-ATA is intended to change that (also able to do hot-plug). The only problem is the # of devices per chanel.
I don't see SCSI disappearing quick, a 10-channel S-ATA serverboard seems alittle overkill (2 x 5 HD drivecages) ... and unlikely to happen.
But - with all this in mind - SCSI has not ever (to my memory) been meant to be one thing - silent
.
So - free yourself from SCSI, and go forth to the P-ATA/S-ATA ranks of silence.
To understand my amusement at such a question, understand that SCSI has always been about PERFORMANCE. Hence, it's popularity among servers (along with its hot-plug ability).
For "nearly ever" IDE couldn't hold its own, compared to SCSI. S-ATA is intended to change that (also able to do hot-plug). The only problem is the # of devices per chanel.
I don't see SCSI disappearing quick, a 10-channel S-ATA serverboard seems alittle overkill (2 x 5 HD drivecages) ... and unlikely to happen.
But - with all this in mind - SCSI has not ever (to my memory) been meant to be one thing - silent
.So - free yourself from SCSI, and go forth to the P-ATA/S-ATA ranks of silence
.-
Edward Ng
- SPCR Reviewer
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:53 pm
- Location: Scarsdale, NY
- Contact:
Seagate Savvio.
Rated at 2.4bels, idle. 10000rpm. U320 SCSI. 8MB buffer, runs cool, long warranty. This is a 2.5" form factor drive designed to maintain workstation performance while provided superior thermal operation as well as acoustic performance, not to mention much lower power draw.
People need to stop bashing SCSI. LSI Logic makes a $45 U160 PCI SCSI host adapter, with BIOS, that Windows XP comes with native drivers for (No F6 during startup). The drives may cost more, but the interface doesn't cost that much extra ($45 won't kill me, don't know 'bout you), and if you factor in the warranty coverage, there's lots of value in it, plus the fact that SCSI drives are designed and built heavy duty, for 24/7 use, in crowded environments.
Enjoy.
-Ed
EDITS: Added to my comments, and made corrections to typos. SCSI needs to be respected!
Rated at 2.4bels, idle. 10000rpm. U320 SCSI. 8MB buffer, runs cool, long warranty. This is a 2.5" form factor drive designed to maintain workstation performance while provided superior thermal operation as well as acoustic performance, not to mention much lower power draw.
People need to stop bashing SCSI. LSI Logic makes a $45 U160 PCI SCSI host adapter, with BIOS, that Windows XP comes with native drivers for (No F6 during startup). The drives may cost more, but the interface doesn't cost that much extra ($45 won't kill me, don't know 'bout you), and if you factor in the warranty coverage, there's lots of value in it, plus the fact that SCSI drives are designed and built heavy duty, for 24/7 use, in crowded environments.
Enjoy.
-Ed
EDITS: Added to my comments, and made corrections to typos. SCSI needs to be respected!
Last edited by Edward Ng on Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.
a little bit flamebait ... but for IDE/SCSI flamewar.
anyway, scsi [is] over performance _and_ reliability.
This also means that they can stand higher temps for higher time periods. For example in a low flow case ... which may then be more silent
And in case, in the linked SR.com test, there's a seagate scsi drive whic is (at idle) quieter than the ide one ... for example.
EDIT : apparently, we were expressing the same opinion at the same time
anyway, scsi [is] over performance _and_ reliability.
This also means that they can stand higher temps for higher time periods. For example in a low flow case ... which may then be more silent
And in case, in the linked SR.com test, there's a seagate scsi drive whic is (at idle) quieter than the ide one ... for example.
EDIT : apparently, we were expressing the same opinion at the same time
Last edited by dago on Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ed - you quite *sure* about those 2.4 bells?Edward Ng wrote:Seagate Savvio.
Rated at 2.4bels, idle. 10000rpm. U320 SCSI. 8MB buffer, runs cool, long warranty. This is a 2.5" form factor drive designed to maintain workstation performance while provided superior thermal operation as well as acoustic performance, not to mention much lower power draw.
People need to stop bashing SCSI. LSI Logic makes a $45 U160 PCI SCSI host adapter, with BIOS, that Windows XP comes with native drivers for (No F6 during startup). The drives may cost more, but the interface doesn't cost extra, and if you factor in the warranty coverage, there's lots of value in it, plus the fact that SCSI drives are designed and built heavy duty, for 24/7 use, in crowded environments.
Enjoy.
-Ed
The spec-sheet I'm looking at (http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datashe ... savvio.pdf) lists 3.5 Bells (look at environmental info).
I'd be quite darn impressed with a 10K / Ultra-320 drive that goes as low as 2.5 bells
.Incidentally, I wasn't bashing SCSI. I quite like it in fact (have worked with it for years)
. Sorry if I made it sound that way perhaps. It's just that SCSI isn't quiet in my experience, that I found it as a rather unsuitable matter for this forum .
Last edited by shathal on Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Never said you lied. Just couldn't find the number.
Hmmm. OK, so it's Seagate who's throwing up the conflicting numbers. Does anyone HAVE these critters, so as to make clear where the 2.4 and the 3.5 bells come from?
If it's 2.4 idle and 3.5 "max/write", then that'd be quite a bit of a leap...
Seagate shouldn't confuse us so.
Edit: For what it's worth, I definately welcome the introduction of silence to SCSI. Though I don't QUITE see where the need came from, seeing as a quiet hard-drive now will only mean that you're deafened by the fans (as per usual) in your servers.
Still a good thing. But I doubt that the home user is much of a target-group for SCSI drives by and large. Just giving my estimates here .
Still a good thing that they're getting quiet(er).
Hmmm. OK, so it's Seagate who's throwing up the conflicting numbers. Does anyone HAVE these critters, so as to make clear where the 2.4 and the 3.5 bells come from?
If it's 2.4 idle and 3.5 "max/write", then that'd be quite a bit of a leap...
Seagate shouldn't confuse us so
.Edit: For what it's worth, I definately welcome the introduction of silence to SCSI. Though I don't QUITE see where the need came from, seeing as a quiet hard-drive now will only mean that you're deafened by the fans (as per usual) in your servers.
Still a good thing. But I doubt that the home user is much of a target-group for SCSI drives by and large
. Just giving my estimates here .Still a good thing that they're getting quiet(er)
.-
Edward Ng
- SPCR Reviewer
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:53 pm
- Location: Scarsdale, NY
- Contact:
ST, two things go together if you think about it...
By reducing the acoustic output of the drives, there's lower noise directly, and then...
...by reducing heat output of the drives, less active cooling (i.e. fans) is necessary, thus indirectly reducing noise even further. Not to mention that these drives probably handle heat extremely well, judging by other 2.5" drives.
Also keep in mind that these servers often use several drives. The decrease in power draw by going from 8 3.5" SCSI drives to 8 Savvios is enough to reduce draw on the power supplies enough to reduce PSU temps, and thus, if the PSU uses load/heat-based fan speed regulation, even further noise reduction.
One ant won't kill you. An army of them will!
-Ed
By reducing the acoustic output of the drives, there's lower noise directly, and then...
...by reducing heat output of the drives, less active cooling (i.e. fans) is necessary, thus indirectly reducing noise even further. Not to mention that these drives probably handle heat extremely well, judging by other 2.5" drives.
Also keep in mind that these servers often use several drives. The decrease in power draw by going from 8 3.5" SCSI drives to 8 Savvios is enough to reduce draw on the power supplies enough to reduce PSU temps, and thus, if the PSU uses load/heat-based fan speed regulation, even further noise reduction.
One ant won't kill you. An army of them will!
-Ed
-
Edward Ng
- SPCR Reviewer
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:53 pm
- Location: Scarsdale, NY
- Contact:
I said reduce cooling, never said how much. There was never a real disagreement, except for the fact that one person hadn't opened up their mind to the possibility of a drive utilizing the SCSI interface that could perform, acoustically, good enough for some members of SPCR.
As I said, past SCSI drives were about as quiet as a Caviar (IOW, not!), but this changes things.
And just as I said right now, some members of SPCR. The Savvio probably isn't as quiet as 5400rpm or 4200rpm 2.5" drives, but it should be right around there with at least the Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 series, if not more like Barracuda 7200.7, and the 7200.7 is quiet enough for certain members of SPCR. Keep in mind that not everyone is going all-out for silence like you and I are; many people still want optimal performance to go along with, "decent," acoustics, a scenario that I believe the Savvio is perfect for; it's everything the Raptor is, only in a smaller, cooler, quieter package (same capacity, same cache size, performance unknown, however). If you're looking for Raptor speed, but Barracuda acoustics, this is it.
In the end, nothing's quieter than either laptop drives, or straight up silence (i.e. solid state). I doubt you and I disagree on that.
-Ed
EDIT: Allow me to add that the Raptor and Savvio are also both 10000rpm drives that come in 36GB and 74GB capacities, for those reading that may not have known. Although similar on paper, however, other things come into play that affect performance, such as areal density (Savvio is higher than Raptor, allowing higher transfer rates for the same distance out from center of the spindle), platter diameter (Raptor is higher than Savvio; at 10000rpm the data rate at the outside of a 3.5" platter, compared to a 2.5" platter of the same density would be much higher), seek behavior (full seek on a 2.5" platter is shorter than full seek on a 3.5" platter, this one goes to the Savvio), and perhaps more important than any of those, optimizations in the drive logic--it is this that allows the Raptor to outperform even the majority of 15,000rpm drives in desktop application performance.
Also keep in mind that the Raptor's platters may not be full size for a 3.5" drive, so its areal density may be closer to the Savvio's, and its platter diameter may also be closer to the Savvio's, as well as head distance-to-travel during full-stroke seeks. The reason is that a disc platter simply may not handle 10000rpm well at a full 3.5" drive platter form factor; all the 15000rpm drives I've seen have very small platters, because they would surely run the risk of shattering at that speed, if they were as large, physically, as the platters in 3.5" 7200rpm drives.
As I said, past SCSI drives were about as quiet as a Caviar (IOW, not!), but this changes things.
And just as I said right now, some members of SPCR. The Savvio probably isn't as quiet as 5400rpm or 4200rpm 2.5" drives, but it should be right around there with at least the Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 series, if not more like Barracuda 7200.7, and the 7200.7 is quiet enough for certain members of SPCR. Keep in mind that not everyone is going all-out for silence like you and I are; many people still want optimal performance to go along with, "decent," acoustics, a scenario that I believe the Savvio is perfect for; it's everything the Raptor is, only in a smaller, cooler, quieter package (same capacity, same cache size, performance unknown, however). If you're looking for Raptor speed, but Barracuda acoustics, this is it.
In the end, nothing's quieter than either laptop drives, or straight up silence (i.e. solid state). I doubt you and I disagree on that.
-Ed
EDIT: Allow me to add that the Raptor and Savvio are also both 10000rpm drives that come in 36GB and 74GB capacities, for those reading that may not have known. Although similar on paper, however, other things come into play that affect performance, such as areal density (Savvio is higher than Raptor, allowing higher transfer rates for the same distance out from center of the spindle), platter diameter (Raptor is higher than Savvio; at 10000rpm the data rate at the outside of a 3.5" platter, compared to a 2.5" platter of the same density would be much higher), seek behavior (full seek on a 2.5" platter is shorter than full seek on a 3.5" platter, this one goes to the Savvio), and perhaps more important than any of those, optimizations in the drive logic--it is this that allows the Raptor to outperform even the majority of 15,000rpm drives in desktop application performance.
Also keep in mind that the Raptor's platters may not be full size for a 3.5" drive, so its areal density may be closer to the Savvio's, and its platter diameter may also be closer to the Savvio's, as well as head distance-to-travel during full-stroke seeks. The reason is that a disc platter simply may not handle 10000rpm well at a full 3.5" drive platter form factor; all the 15000rpm drives I've seen have very small platters, because they would surely run the risk of shattering at that speed, if they were as large, physically, as the platters in 3.5" 7200rpm drives.
Last edited by Edward Ng on Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nice discussion during the night, guys
To pu my 2¢, it is also interesting to note that server case, especially blades, are low airflow and high thermal output computers... which is similar to what spcr freaks have ...
Also to conclude that this new harddisk should figure into mikec's "what do you want me to test ?" list (where was it ???)
I'd also to add a new "dimension" to that debate : price.
No one will ever discuss that scsi hdd are more expensive and have higher margins than IDE ones. Here, a 80G Seagate IDE cost about 75 CHF, while 76 GB scsi are priced at 470 CHF (yes, the scsi is more reliable and has better perf but that's not the point).
And while this price premium and the noise* was what made me switch back to IDE, it also allows the manufacturer to put more money per disk into R&D and QA. And this last one is especially better than for IDE, because you can't compensate by having more volume.
Finally, to stay on topic, matt, this new seagate is what you want. Can you please test it for us ?
To pu my 2¢, it is also interesting to note that server case, especially blades, are low airflow and high thermal output computers... which is similar to what spcr freaks have ...
Also to conclude that this new harddisk should figure into mikec's "what do you want me to test ?" list (where was it ???)
I'd also to add a new "dimension" to that debate : price.
No one will ever discuss that scsi hdd are more expensive and have higher margins than IDE ones. Here, a 80G Seagate IDE cost about 75 CHF, while 76 GB scsi are priced at 470 CHF (yes, the scsi is more reliable and has better perf but that's not the point).
And while this price premium and the noise* was what made me switch back to IDE, it also allows the manufacturer to put more money per disk into R&D and QA. And this last one is especially better than for IDE, because you can't compensate by having more volume.
Finally, to stay on topic, matt, this new seagate is what you want. Can you please test it for us ?
-
matt_garman
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:35 am
- Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
- Contact:
Don't get my wrong, I'm all for SCSI, but I'm really starting to wonder if it''s worth the extra cost (even neglecting the cost of the interface card).Edward Ng wrote:People need to stop bashing SCSI. LSI Logic makes a $45 U160 PCI SCSI host adapter, with BIOS, that Windows XP comes with native drivers for (No F6 during startup). The drives may cost more, but the interface doesn't cost that much extra ($45 won't kill me, don't know 'bout you), and if you factor in the warranty coverage, there's lots of value in it, plus the fact that SCSI drives are designed and built heavy duty, for 24/7 use, in crowded environments.
I just checked newegg, and for $140 (US), you can get a Seagate 37 GB 10k RPM SCSI drive or a 200 GB 7.2k RPM IDE drive. Ignoring all the technical advantages SCSI has over IDE, the cost per GB is five times higher with SCSI! That's obscene!
So, if we look at some of the other aspects of IDE vs SCSI:
- Performance. I haven't done a detailed analysis, but I'm guessing that IDE-RAID can beat standalone SCSI's price/performance ratio. As I mentioned above, IDE is effectively five times cheaper than SCSI per GB, so theoretically, I could buy five IDE drives at the same price as one SCSI drive. With the proper RAID setup (even software RAID), I'm sure the IDE-RAID performance would best the single SCSI drive.
- Reliability. Same rationale as the previous point: you can buy so many more IDE drives at the same price point as you can SCSI. Sure, SCSI has better MTBF, are engineered for worse/more stressful conditions, etc, but I think simple probabilities are in our favor when we compare the reliability of five IDE drives to one SCSI drive.
I'm not trying to make a case against SCSI in any way---I just wish it were cheaper! When the price difference between the two is so great, I really start to scrutinize why I would choose the more expensive option. I don't think this is a matter of choosing between the Toyota and the BMW---it's choosing between the Toyota and the Rolls Royce.
But, having said all that, I'm definately interested to see how much these Seagate Savvio drives cost. If the price isn't obscene, I'll probably give them a try.
The 2.5 inch size looks especially useful for us SPCR folks: it will allow us to use better/more sophisticated hard drive-frame decoupling methods in the 3.5 inch drive area of most cases.
Matt
-
Edward Ng
- SPCR Reviewer
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:53 pm
- Location: Scarsdale, NY
- Contact:
On the same front, keep in mind that 2.5" drives cost more than standard 3.5" drives, as well, so it's not just SCSI costing more.
For example, I paid over $200 for my MHT2080AT; see if you can find it anywhere for under $195 before shipping! And it's just 80GB; for $200 I can buy an ST3200822A, and that's 200GB. Of course you're getting much superior acoustic performance as well as thermal environmentals and ability to sustain higher heat levels, and operate in extremely cramped, low-zero air flow spaces.
I say if you can't justify the cost of SCSI over IDE, you probably won't justify the cost of 2.5" drives over 3.5" drives, either because of cost, or because you need more space. If all you want to do is install the OS and a few select applications, and are running non-HDD-intensive software, then 2.5" drives are seemingly worth the premium. If you're going to be space-mongering, 3.5" IDE is still your drive of choice. SCSI is the drive of choice for those who want the utmost performance and reliability, as well as the 5-year warranty coverage, and space is not as important either. Small SCSI drives aren't out of reach, it's the large ones that are.
Seagate has not yet released Savvio in SAS yet, and I'm not sure if they even have SATA planned. Remember that SAS controllers can take both, SAS and SATA drives, but SATA controllers can only take SATA drives.
-Ed
For example, I paid over $200 for my MHT2080AT; see if you can find it anywhere for under $195 before shipping! And it's just 80GB; for $200 I can buy an ST3200822A, and that's 200GB. Of course you're getting much superior acoustic performance as well as thermal environmentals and ability to sustain higher heat levels, and operate in extremely cramped, low-zero air flow spaces.
I say if you can't justify the cost of SCSI over IDE, you probably won't justify the cost of 2.5" drives over 3.5" drives, either because of cost, or because you need more space. If all you want to do is install the OS and a few select applications, and are running non-HDD-intensive software, then 2.5" drives are seemingly worth the premium. If you're going to be space-mongering, 3.5" IDE is still your drive of choice. SCSI is the drive of choice for those who want the utmost performance and reliability, as well as the 5-year warranty coverage, and space is not as important either. Small SCSI drives aren't out of reach, it's the large ones that are.
Seagate has not yet released Savvio in SAS yet, and I'm not sure if they even have SATA planned. Remember that SAS controllers can take both, SAS and SATA drives, but SATA controllers can only take SATA drives.
-Ed
-
matt_garman
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:35 am
- Location: Chicago, Ill., USA
- Contact:
Has anyone seen the Seagate Savvio drives for sale at any online reatailer? I'm curious as to what they cost (they should be released by now).
Or even better, does anyone own one of the Savvio drives?
The high-pitched whine of the Quantum Atlas 10k II is really starting to get to me. If the Savvio is too expensive, I'll probably just try my luck with a Seagate 36 GB 10k RPM SCSI drive (based on the Storage Review link above, the fact that my work computer has two relatively quiet Seagate SCSI drives, and the sloppy logic of, "if Seagate's IDE drives are relatively quiet, then maybe their SCSI drives are as well").
At any rate, I certainly can't get any worse!
Matt
Or even better, does anyone own one of the Savvio drives?
The high-pitched whine of the Quantum Atlas 10k II is really starting to get to me. If the Savvio is too expensive, I'll probably just try my luck with a Seagate 36 GB 10k RPM SCSI drive (based on the Storage Review link above, the fact that my work computer has two relatively quiet Seagate SCSI drives, and the sloppy logic of, "if Seagate's IDE drives are relatively quiet, then maybe their SCSI drives are as well").
At any rate, I certainly can't get any worse!
Matt
If you're willing to pay the price, they are available for purchase.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=sav ... &scoring=p
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=sav ... &scoring=p
to add to ed's info on scsi controllers, that LSI U160 hba is currently $32 at newegg
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDe ... 009&depa=0
lsi's U320 dual channel controller with *true* hardware raid 0/1/10 also goes for about $140.
a cheap place for used controllers: http://www.axiontech.com (quicksell section) i got a dual channel adaptec u160 (64bit / 66mhz) with dual ext ports for $88. at a local computer fair i was also able to get an adaptec 3400s 4 channel raid (0-5) card w/ 32mb ecc for $99 (to which i added an extra 64mb ecc module for $19 )!!
scsi drives will never be as cheap as ide.. but if you're willing to look around, wait, and don't mind either refurbs, discontinued models, or oem surplus, you can get drives for a whole lot less than new.
good places to look:
http://www.spartantech.com/products.asp ... b=p&sall=y
http://www.centrix-intl.com/
http://www.upgrade-solution.com/product ... D%20DRIVES
http://www.nautilusnet.com/
.. now, as far as performance goes.. that reminds me, i made a promise on another thread to do a comparison of 36gb raptors vs scsi.. which i intend to keep albeit on deferred time .. so for "desktop" usage, i think ide is ok. but that sorta depends how you define desktop though . ride raid can help in large aggregate transfers but not so much for small files, nor *especially* multithreaded i/o. reason being with respect for sata controllers, is that except for a couple controllers and a two sata drives--the maxtor maxline III's and seagate's baracuda 7200.7's--no one in the ide world implements native command queing (wd's 73gb raptors implement the legacay pata command queing which noone ever used). and the primary reason why in the other, non-desktop scenarios (which i suspect would include more people from the unix/linux world), scsi really outshines ide. note that sata's ncq, though quite good, isn't as sophisticated as scsi's tcq, afaik.
.. however, since you did mention that performance is a non-issue, i'd just recommend pairs of ide drives in a mirrored arrays since performance will never be worse than a single drive which is my config for non-critical/realtime perf storage. if you're running win 2k/2k3 server, or *nix, i'd use the built in software raid rather than the driver's raid functionality if it's a low end card. since the os's raid-1 function can improve the read performance unlike all the low end card's raid-1 i've read about.
an alternative in getting the best of both worlds--after a bit of initial $$ "investment"--is usiing external serial attached scsi boxes to sata instead. the advantage of scsi's protocol with the benefit of cheap drives.
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDe ... 009&depa=0
lsi's U320 dual channel controller with *true* hardware raid 0/1/10 also goes for about $140.
a cheap place for used controllers: http://www.axiontech.com (quicksell section) i got a dual channel adaptec u160 (64bit / 66mhz) with dual ext ports for $88. at a local computer fair i was also able to get an adaptec 3400s 4 channel raid (0-5) card w/ 32mb ecc for $99 (to which i added an extra 64mb ecc module for $19
)!!scsi drives will never be as cheap as ide.. but if you're willing to look around, wait, and don't mind either refurbs, discontinued models, or oem surplus, you can get drives for a whole lot less than new.
good places to look:
http://www.spartantech.com/products.asp ... b=p&sall=y
http://www.centrix-intl.com/
http://www.upgrade-solution.com/product ... D%20DRIVES
http://www.nautilusnet.com/
.. now, as far as performance goes.. that reminds me, i made a promise on another thread to do a comparison of 36gb raptors vs scsi.. which i intend to keep albeit on deferred time .. so for "desktop" usage, i think ide is ok. but that sorta depends how you define desktop though . ride raid can help in large aggregate transfers but not so much for small files, nor *especially* multithreaded i/o. reason being with respect for sata controllers, is that except for a couple controllers and a two sata drives--the maxtor maxline III's and seagate's baracuda 7200.7's--no one in the ide world implements native command queing (wd's 73gb raptors implement the legacay pata command queing which noone ever used). and the primary reason why in the other, non-desktop scenarios (which i suspect would include more people from the unix/linux world), scsi really outshines ide. note that sata's ncq, though quite good, isn't as sophisticated as scsi's tcq, afaik.
.. however, since you did mention that performance is a non-issue, i'd just recommend pairs of ide drives in a mirrored arrays since performance will never be worse than a single drive which is my config for non-critical/realtime perf storage. if you're running win 2k/2k3 server, or *nix, i'd use the built in software raid rather than the driver's raid functionality if it's a low end card. since the os's raid-1 function can improve the read performance unlike all the low end card's raid-1 i've read about.
an alternative in getting the best of both worlds--after a bit of initial $$ "investment"--is usiing external serial attached scsi boxes to sata instead. the advantage of scsi's protocol with the benefit of cheap drives.
I'm in the same boat as you... SCSI drives for OS and critical items and IDE for mass storage.
don't believe the SATA hype. Almost all drives in the current market are bridged IDE drives. Seagate is the only one ATM with a non-bridged SATA solution. Wait till SATA-2 spec drives are in the market.
if you decide to stick with the SCSI route, you might want to try some internal enclosures such as the SlientMaxx. It should do wonders to quiet down your Atlas.
also, unlike IDE drives, you can power down your SCSI drives when not in use.
don't believe the SATA hype. Almost all drives in the current market are bridged IDE drives. Seagate is the only one ATM with a non-bridged SATA solution. Wait till SATA-2 spec drives are in the market.
if you decide to stick with the SCSI route, you might want to try some internal enclosures such as the SlientMaxx. It should do wonders to quiet down your Atlas.
also, unlike IDE drives, you can power down your SCSI drives when not in use.
-
hydroxyhydride
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 10:49 am
My current "quiet" system contains a 36 gig Seagate 15k3. Obviously it isn't silent. Of course my Samsung drive blows it away in terms of noise and heat. However, it is a sacrifice I'm willing to make and I will not replace the drive with anything slower. That and I don't have money to spend on new performance drives at the moment.
My 15k3 it is quieter than my old WD and IBM hard drives in my old systems, and I only notice the idle noise when my room is damn quiet. Most of the time my system is indestinguishable from ambient except for seeks. YMMV.
My 15k3 it is quieter than my old WD and IBM hard drives in my old systems, and I only notice the idle noise when my room is damn quiet. Most of the time my system is indestinguishable from ambient except for seeks. YMMV.