Installing Windows XP on a SCSI Drive

[gilgamesh 0]

I have heard/read that installing XP on a SCSI hard drive will be slower than if you installed it on an IDE drive, the site belows says approx 50% slower. This doesn't seem to make sense. Anyway I wondering if this is true. Here is the site that says this:

 

http://scsi.radified.com/

 

Thanks in advance.

[Silver-Dagger 0]

This would all depend on bus type (isa or pci), bus speed, type of SCSI card, type of SCSI connection, and spindal speed of the drive.

I will bet that a PCI-64/SCSI 3/10,000 RPM drive would install rather fast.

[Tomay 0]

Read this:

 

http://www.dansdata.com/io031.htm

 

Quote:

SCSI super-drives aren't a good choice for desktop machines. A high-priced 15,000RPM SCSI hard drive may well load a big fat game slower than a commodity 7200RPM drive. This is because SCSI server drives top out at capacities well under 100Gb, while commodity drives with capacities well above 200Gb are commonly available.

 

If you've got three times as much capacity, three times as much data passes under the heads per second. That triples your sustained transfer rate, all other things being equal (which they won't be - number of platters is a factor - but never mind that for now). A 15,000RPM 73Gb drive is only mechanically capable of 61% of the sustained transfer rate of an otherwise similar 7200RPM 250Gb drive.

[BloodRedDragon 0]

Originally posted by Tomay:

Quote:

Read this:

 

http://www.dansdata.com/io031.htm

 

Quote:

SCSI super-drives aren't a good choice for desktop machines. A high-priced 15,000RPM SCSI hard drive may well load a big fat game slower than a commodity 7200RPM drive. This is because SCSI server drives top out at capacities well under 100Gb, while commodity drives with capacities well above 200Gb are commonly available.

 

If you've got three times as much capacity, three times as much data passes under the heads per second. That triples your sustained transfer rate, all other things being equal (which they won't be - number of platters is a factor - but never mind that for now). A 15,000RPM 73Gb drive is only mechanically capable of 61% of the sustained transfer rate of an otherwise similar 7200RPM 250Gb drive.

 

 

From all of the hard drive testing I've seen online, that theory doesn't hold water. There is, however, other things to keep in mind. If you go cheap and get an older version of a 10000/15000rpm SCSI drive, you may very well find that a current sata or ide 7200 rpm drive is faster. Also, from personal experience, the overhead (time-wise) of the SCSI bus seems to negate the effect of the faster access times of the drive unless its pushed hard (multiple I/O requests, especially among multiple drives - what SCSI is designed for). And there's always the noise factor with 10000/15000rpm drives.

[overworked 0]

There is just no substitute for looking at the white sheets on the drives you are considering. Also, you must consider the bus, caching and any host of other factors.

[BloodRedDragon 0]

There was a time when low CPU clock speeds and high utilization from non-DMA IDE drives made SCSI very attractive, even on a single user desktop system.