Quote:
|
SCSI was in the lead because it can queue commands and works better in high load work with many requests such as web servers. but for workstations I can't see any difference between three (for current generaion hdd's).
|
Queuing has nothing to do with it. The reason scsi is faster is because it doesnt rely on the bus. The bus is where the bottleneck on virtually any system is.. you have your processor, memory and a few other gadgets trying to use your bus.. .. suppose you do a bunch of reads and writes.. regardless of the speed of your bus, the processor has to execute multiple commands, memory has to do the same as well.. and now you add your hdd in and it increases latency... even in low load environments. plus consider that any system really is a high load environment because bandwidth usage hits in bursts (e.g. every time you open word your system is taxed in overtime).
Scsi is by far and away better for every application. It's just more expensive. Kinda like saying a 100k sports car isnt as good as your pinto.. your pinto might be cheaper and hold more mexicans, but i assure you my car will perform far better in any situation that relies on speed
ide drives have caught up in rpm's but as i'm now addressed, rpm's are such a minor issue really. kinda like processor speed, it's really over hyped and less tied to good performance that you would be lead to believe by *gasp* intel and amd.
tony. i assure you. get yourself a nice fat 80 gig 15k barracuda and your system will be twice as fast. you wont believe it.
that, or buy a mac