1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SCSI 320

Discussion in 'Storage Drives' started by Guest2, 21 Sep 2009.

  1. Guest2

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 May 2009

    Posts: 16,203

    Looking at hard drive score results it shows SCSI 320 being highest on charts with things like new SATA 2 drives getting lower scores. Not sure about SSD drives.

    Why dont people just find some old cheap 36GB SCSI disks, say 3 of them and stick them in RAID 5 and use this as a primary drive. Or is it because the RAID controller costs a load. Not sure what else is needed to run SCSI disks
     
  2. samir_ansari

    Hitman

    Joined: 17 Sep 2009

    Posts: 527

    Location: London

    Yea i think it is the controller cards that make it quite unaffordable for most. Also spinning up at 15k they can be very noisy!
     
  3. AbsenceJam

    Mobster

    Joined: 2 Nov 2007

    Posts: 4,304

    Well you need a board with PCI-X slots for the controller as PCI has little bandwidth, they're very loud, produce a lot of heat, slower on the desktop as they're optimised for lots of transactions.

    Oh and the transfer rates are worse than the last few generations of 7200rpm disks. :) Newer SAS drives are quicker but cost more than faster SSD's.
     
  4. Guest2

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 May 2009

    Posts: 16,203

    Strange, yesterday I rebuilt a server with 3 disks from our old (2 weeks ago) domain controller. This is to try and get some tapes running from a backup drive. Came in this morning and one of the 3 SCSI disks has a nice orange light on it.
    Good job it didnt do this 2 weeks ago!
     
  5. Guest2

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 May 2009

    Posts: 16,203

    Yeh, thats what we use in most of our servers - 72gb SAS drives. How expensive for one, guessing it would need some sort of new SAS controller too