🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi.  Perhaps I was not clear. I am upgrading my system because of its speed.
I think that I will purchase an ASUS P4PE motherboard with an Intel 2.5 gHz
cpu.  I presently have striped 9.1GB Cheetahs on a SCSI subsystem and also
need to increase my storage so I am looking to increase my hdd capacity as
well, and I thought that I would begin investigating to see what the effective
transfer speed between the newer IDE disks and SCSI presently is.  My thought
is to do a RAID 0+1 to have both speed (striping) and redundancy for backup
(mirroring).  I am not sure if the Promise controller on the ASUS mb will do
this but I am willing to purchase an IDE controller if need be, as the whole
setup would not be a terribly expensive backup system.

Any advice is VERY welcome...

Thanks,
Ken K




David wrote:

> Check out the performance given by the new 200 gig SE hard drives from
> Western Digital, they are very fast:
>
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/02q4/021011/wd2000jb-06.html
>
> How is your FSB speed 133 with your cpu at 450?
>
> "Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message news:3DCE8DAC.C993EC7@psnw.com...
> > My present system is a 450 133FSB system with SCSI 160 components
> > (paired striped Cheetahs).  It is time to upgrade my processor and
> > motherboard as well as increase my hdd capacity.  Can anyone fill me in
> > on the advances in IDE hdd technology vis-a-vis SCSI technology over the
> > past years and how it translates into data transfer speed, which is the
> > real bottleneck in computing?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ken K
> >
> >

Is there any way to get around that?  If, for example, there is an onboard
RAID controller integratged into my mb does that get fed on  a faster bus or
is it still just a 133 bus?

Thanks
Ken K

Lil' Dave wrote:

> Bottleneck=PCI bus
> Dave
> Ken K <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message news:3DCE8DAC.C993EC7@psnw.com...
> > My present system is a 450 133FSB system with SCSI 160 components
> > (paired striped Cheetahs).  It is time to upgrade my processor and
> > motherboard as well as increase my hdd capacity.  Can anyone fill me in
> > on the advances in IDE hdd technology vis-a-vis SCSI technology over the
> > past years and how it translates into data transfer speed, which is the
> > real bottleneck in computing?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ken K
> >
> >

Check out the performance given by the new 200 gig SE hard drives from
Western Digital, they are very fast:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/02q4/021011/wd2000jb-06.html

How is your FSB speed 133 with your cpu at 450?


"Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message news:3DCE8DAC.C993EC7@psnw.com...
> My present system is a 450 133FSB system with SCSI 160 components
> (paired striped Cheetahs).  It is time to upgrade my processor and
> motherboard as well as increase my hdd capacity.  Can anyone fill me in
> on the advances in IDE hdd technology vis-a-vis SCSI technology over the
> past years and how it translates into data transfer speed, which is the
> real bottleneck in computing?
>
> Thanks
> Ken K
>
>

Bottleneck=PCI bus
Dave
Ken K <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message news:3DCE8DAC.C993EC7@psnw.com...
> My present system is a 450 133FSB system with SCSI 160 components
> (paired striped Cheetahs).  It is time to upgrade my processor and
> motherboard as well as increase my hdd capacity.  Can anyone fill me in
> on the advances in IDE hdd technology vis-a-vis SCSI technology over the
> past years and how it translates into data transfer speed, which is the
> real bottleneck in computing?
>
> Thanks
> Ken K
>
>

The PCI bottleneck affects you only when you've got some major bandwidth
(like, say, striped Cheetah's). Your u160 SCSI card also tops out at about
the same throughput, and so would a SATA 150 Mb/s interface.

The only solution I'm aware of is to get a server board with one or more
64-bit PCI slots and use a u320 SCSI card. I'm not aware of any drive
interfaces that connect "further up" past the PCI bus.





"Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92C2D3CAF232Enntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> Ken K <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in news:3DCF0B45.EC57AD4B@psnw.com:
>
> > Is there any way to get around that?  If, for example, there is an
> > onboard RAID controller integratged into my mb does that get fed on  a
> > faster bus or is it still just a 133 bus?
>
>
> Not really on a consumer desktop system, so don't worry about PCI being a
> bottleneck...
>
>
> --
>   __   ______
>  / /\_/_  __/\ | Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
> /____/\/_/\_\/ | Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address
> \____\/\_\/    | when replying.

Ken K <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in news:3DCF0B45.EC57AD4B@psnw.com:

> Is there any way to get around that?  If, for example, there is an
> onboard RAID controller integratged into my mb does that get fed on  a
> faster bus or is it still just a 133 bus?


Not really on a consumer desktop system, so don't worry about PCI being a
bottleneck...


--
  __   ______
 / /\_/_  __/\ | Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
/____/\/_/\_\/ | Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address
\____\/\_\/    | when replying.

IDE transfer rates are nearly up to SCSI levels. RAID still seems to work
much better on SCSI, though. Browse through www.storagereview.com's
leaderboard and reviews to get an idea of what's available.

For comparison, I found that a pair of striped Western Digital 800JB's has
about a 15-20% higher transfer rate than my Cheetah X15-36LP on large
read/writes (they topped out at 70-75 Mb/s). The 800JB's are using my MSI
KT3 board's onboard Promise RAID (ATA133, I think), and the Cheetah's on an
Adaptec 29160N. The Cheetah was my boot drive when I ran these tests, in
case that matters. It's not quite a fair contest, though... two of the
fastest IDE's against a single last-generation SCSI. In any case, the
Cheetah was still faster on small file reads under 16k.





"Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message news:3DCF082E.68838954@psnw.com...
> Hi.  Perhaps I was not clear. I am upgrading my system because of its
speed.
> I think that I will purchase an ASUS P4PE motherboard with an Intel 2.5
gHz
> cpu.  I presently have striped 9.1GB Cheetahs on a SCSI subsystem and also
> need to increase my storage so I am looking to increase my hdd capacity as
> well, and I thought that I would begin investigating to see what the
effective
> transfer speed between the newer IDE disks and SCSI presently is.  My
thought
> is to do a RAID 0+1 to have both speed (striping) and redundancy for
backup
> (mirroring).  I am not sure if the Promise controller on the ASUS mb will
do
> this but I am willing to purchase an IDE controller if need be, as the
whole
> setup would not be a terribly expensive backup system.
>
> Any advice is VERY welcome...
>
> Thanks,
> Ken K
>
>
>
>
> David wrote:
>
> > Check out the performance given by the new 200 gig SE hard drives from
> > Western Digital, they are very fast:
> >
> > http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/02q4/021011/wd2000jb-06.html
> >
> > How is your FSB speed 133 with your cpu at 450?
> >
> > "Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message
news:3DCE8DAC.C993EC7@psnw.com...
> > > My present system is a 450 133FSB system with SCSI 160 components
> > > (paired striped Cheetahs).  It is time to upgrade my processor and
> > > motherboard as well as increase my hdd capacity.  Can anyone fill me
in
> > > on the advances in IDE hdd technology vis-a-vis SCSI technology over
the
> > > past years and how it translates into data transfer speed, which is
the
> > > real bottleneck in computing?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Ken K
> > >
> > >
>

Thank for your input.

Ken K

BS wrote:

> The PCI bottleneck affects you only when you've got some major bandwidth
> (like, say, striped Cheetah's). Your u160 SCSI card also tops out at about
> the same throughput, and so would a SATA 150 Mb/s interface.
>
> The only solution I'm aware of is to get a server board with one or more
> 64-bit PCI slots and use a u320 SCSI card. I'm not aware of any drive
> interfaces that connect "further up" past the PCI bus.
>
> "Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92C2D3CAF232Enntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> > Ken K <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in news:3DCF0B45.EC57AD4B@psnw.com:
> >
> > > Is there any way to get around that?  If, for example, there is an
> > > onboard RAID controller integratged into my mb does that get fed on  a
> > > faster bus or is it still just a 133 bus?
> >
> >
> > Not really on a consumer desktop system, so don't worry about PCI being a
> > bottleneck...
> >
> >
> > --
> >   __   ______
> >  / /\_/_  __/\ | Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
> > /____/\/_/\_\/ | Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address
> > \____\/\_\/    | when replying.

Thanks for your input.

Ken K

Lil' Dave wrote:

> PCI bus is standard 33 MHz.  The obvious solution is 66 MHz/64 bit found on
> some rare server motherboards.  The problem is that there's many things
> utilizing the PCI bus.
> Dave
> BS <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:35F4DD18A732C999.156E647B81F9EC8A.9A0D13E478EB8E54@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> > The PCI bottleneck affects you only when you've got some major bandwidth
> > (like, say, striped Cheetah's). Your u160 SCSI card also tops out at about
> > the same throughput, and so would a SATA 150 Mb/s interface.
> >
> > The only solution I'm aware of is to get a server board with one or more
> > 64-bit PCI slots and use a u320 SCSI card. I'm not aware of any drive
> > interfaces that connect "further up" past the PCI bus.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns92C2D3CAF232Enntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> > > Ken K <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in news:3DCF0B45.EC57AD4B@psnw.com:
> > >
> > > > Is there any way to get around that?  If, for example, there is an
> > > > onboard RAID controller integratged into my mb does that get fed on  a
> > > > faster bus or is it still just a 133 bus?
> > >
> > >
> > > Not really on a consumer desktop system, so don't worry about PCI being
> a
> > > bottleneck...
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >   __   ______
> > >  / /\_/_  __/\ | Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
> > > /____/\/_/\_\/ | Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address
> > > \____\/\_\/    | when replying.
> >
> >

PCI bus is standard 33 MHz.  The obvious solution is 66 MHz/64 bit found on
some rare server motherboards.  The problem is that there's many things
utilizing the PCI bus.
Dave
BS <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:35F4DD18A732C999.156E647B81F9EC8A.9A0D13E478EB8E54@lp.airnews.net...
>
> The PCI bottleneck affects you only when you've got some major bandwidth
> (like, say, striped Cheetah's). Your u160 SCSI card also tops out at about
> the same throughput, and so would a SATA 150 Mb/s interface.
>
> The only solution I'm aware of is to get a server board with one or more
> 64-bit PCI slots and use a u320 SCSI card. I'm not aware of any drive
> interfaces that connect "further up" past the PCI bus.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92C2D3CAF232Enntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> > Ken K <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in news:3DCF0B45.EC57AD4B@psnw.com:
> >
> > > Is there any way to get around that?  If, for example, there is an
> > > onboard RAID controller integratged into my mb does that get fed on  a
> > > faster bus or is it still just a 133 bus?
> >
> >
> > Not really on a consumer desktop system, so don't worry about PCI being
a
> > bottleneck...
> >
> >
> > --
> >   __   ______
> >  / /\_/_  __/\ | Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
> > /____/\/_/\_\/ | Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address
> > \____\/\_\/    | when replying.
>
>

Thanks for the info.  I assume that you are doing either RAID0 or
striping
through the operating system.

I am interested by your statement about RAID working better with SCSI
than IDE.  I will read what is available on storagereview.com

How do you deal with backup for your system?  I presently have a SCSI
Sony 900
tape backup using DDS-3 tapes, which top out about 24 MB.My thought is
to either
purchase 4 hdd's to allow for RAID0+1 to benefit from the speed of RAID0
and
security of RAID1 or to stripe two drives either with RAID or Windows OS
and
purchase a 3rd drive and use a program like Retrospective Express on it
for backup.  (I will use my SCSI subsystem for the CD-Roms that I have
as they work quite well.

Do you have any input?

Thanks,
Ken K





BS wrote:

> IDE transfer rates are nearly up to SCSI levels. RAID still seems to work
> much better on SCSI, though. Browse through www.storagereview.com's
> leaderboard and reviews to get an idea of what's available.
>
> For comparison, I found that a pair of striped Western Digital 800JB's has
> about a 15-20% higher transfer rate than my Cheetah X15-36LP on large
> read/writes (they topped out at 70-75 Mb/s). The 800JB's are using my MSI
> KT3 board's onboard Promise RAID (ATA133, I think), and the Cheetah's on an
> Adaptec 29160N. The Cheetah was my boot drive when I ran these tests, in
> case that matters. It's not quite a fair contest, though... two of the
> fastest IDE's against a single last-generation SCSI. In any case, the
> Cheetah was still faster on small file reads under 16k.
>
> "Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message news:3DCF082E.68838954@psnw.com...
> > Hi.  Perhaps I was not clear. I am upgrading my system because of its
> speed.
> > I think that I will purchase an ASUS P4PE motherboard with an Intel 2.5
> gHz
> > cpu.  I presently have striped 9.1GB Cheetahs on a SCSI subsystem and also
> > need to increase my storage so I am looking to increase my hdd capacity as
> > well, and I thought that I would begin investigating to see what the
> effective
> > transfer speed between the newer IDE disks and SCSI presently is.  My
> thought
> > is to do a RAID 0+1 to have both speed (striping) and redundancy for
> backup
> > (mirroring).  I am not sure if the Promise controller on the ASUS mb will
> do
> > this but I am willing to purchase an IDE controller if need be, as the
> whole
> > setup would not be a terribly expensive backup system.
> >
> > Any advice is VERY welcome...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ken K
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David wrote:
> >
> > > Check out the performance given by the new 200 gig SE hard drives from
> > > Western Digital, they are very fast:
> > >
> > > http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/02q4/021011/wd2000jb-06.html
> > >
> > > How is your FSB speed 133 with your cpu at 450?
> > >
> > > "Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message
> news:3DCE8DAC.C993EC7@psnw.com...
> > > > My present system is a 450 133FSB system with SCSI 160 components
> > > > (paired striped Cheetahs).  It is time to upgrade my processor and
> > > > motherboard as well as increase my hdd capacity.  Can anyone fill me
> in
> > > > on the advances in IDE hdd technology vis-a-vis SCSI technology over
> the
> > > > past years and how it translates into data transfer speed, which is
> the
> > > > real bottleneck in computing?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Ken K
> > > >
> > > >
> >

Right now I'm using my KT3's onboard Promise controller for IDE RAID0. I'm
trying to convince myself to upgrade to u160 RAID0 with 15k.3's in a few
months, but it's difficult to justify the expense because the 800JB's are a
pretty cost-effective solution and the performance isn't bad at all.

I use an extra internal IDE drive for automated backups. I made a DOS script
using the "xcopy" command, and set it to run weekly as a scheduled task in
the background. It copies each of my file/document folders from the main
drives onto the backup. For a while I used the Windows backup utility too.
The choice of backup utilities depends on what you need and what you're
willing to pay for, I guess. Me, I don't mind reinstalling the operating
system if the main drive crashes, I just want to be sure I don't lose my
data.

I've also used an external SCSI drive in the past; the added benefit is that
I can store the backup safely in a different location.


RAID1 is really only necessary if you need a real-time backup and the
capability to get back up and running in nearly zero time. If you can get by
with an occasional backup, save some big money and big headaches by just
keeping a seperate drive for it.






"Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message news:3DD00196.4CC0C9B6@psnw.com...
> Thanks for the info.  I assume that you are doing either RAID0 or
> striping
> through the operating system.
>
> I am interested by your statement about RAID working better with SCSI
> than IDE.  I will read what is available on storagereview.com
>
> How do you deal with backup for your system?  I presently have a SCSI
> Sony 900
> tape backup using DDS-3 tapes, which top out about 24 MB.My thought is
> to either
> purchase 4 hdd's to allow for RAID0+1 to benefit from the speed of RAID0
> and
> security of RAID1 or to stripe two drives either with RAID or Windows OS
> and
> purchase a 3rd drive and use a program like Retrospective Express on it
> for backup.  (I will use my SCSI subsystem for the CD-Roms that I have
> as they work quite well.
>
> Do you have any input?
>
> Thanks,
> Ken K
>
>
>
>
>
> BS wrote:
>
> > IDE transfer rates are nearly up to SCSI levels. RAID still seems to
work
> > much better on SCSI, though. Browse through www.storagereview.com's
> > leaderboard and reviews to get an idea of what's available.
> >
> > For comparison, I found that a pair of striped Western Digital 800JB's
has
> > about a 15-20% higher transfer rate than my Cheetah X15-36LP on large
> > read/writes (they topped out at 70-75 Mb/s). The 800JB's are using my
MSI
> > KT3 board's onboard Promise RAID (ATA133, I think), and the Cheetah's on
an
> > Adaptec 29160N. The Cheetah was my boot drive when I ran these tests, in
> > case that matters. It's not quite a fair contest, though... two of the
> > fastest IDE's against a single last-generation SCSI. In any case, the
> > Cheetah was still faster on small file reads under 16k.
> >
> > "Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message
news:3DCF082E.68838954@psnw.com...
> > > Hi.  Perhaps I was not clear. I am upgrading my system because of its
> > speed.
> > > I think that I will purchase an ASUS P4PE motherboard with an Intel
2.5
> > gHz
> > > cpu.  I presently have striped 9.1GB Cheetahs on a SCSI subsystem and
also
> > > need to increase my storage so I am looking to increase my hdd
capacity as
> > > well, and I thought that I would begin investigating to see what the
> > effective
> > > transfer speed between the newer IDE disks and SCSI presently is.  My
> > thought
> > > is to do a RAID 0+1 to have both speed (striping) and redundancy for
> > backup
> > > (mirroring).  I am not sure if the Promise controller on the ASUS mb
will
> > do
> > > this but I am willing to purchase an IDE controller if need be, as the
> > whole
> > > setup would not be a terribly expensive backup system.
> > >
> > > Any advice is VERY welcome...
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ken K
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David wrote:
> > >
> > > > Check out the performance given by the new 200 gig SE hard drives
from
> > > > Western Digital, they are very fast:
> > > >
> > > > http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/02q4/021011/wd2000jb-06.html
> > > >
> > > > How is your FSB speed 133 with your cpu at 450?
> > > >
> > > > "Ken K" <kenk@psnw.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DCE8DAC.C993EC7@psnw.com...
> > > > > My present system is a 450 133FSB system with SCSI 160 components
> > > > > (paired striped Cheetahs).  It is time to upgrade my processor and
> > > > > motherboard as well as increase my hdd capacity.  Can anyone fill
me
> > in
> > > > > on the advances in IDE hdd technology vis-a-vis SCSI technology
over
> > the
> > > > > past years and how it translates into data transfer speed, which
is
> > the
> > > > > real bottleneck in computing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Ken K
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >