|
Sorry hooper..
You're outdated.
SCSI is great, and IMO more reliable (just better quality control, etc.), and of course more suited towards "enterprise" applications.
However, single drive UDMA/SATA is actually in almost all cases faster than single drive SCSI these days.
Not at random access, but at sustained write/reads such as video editing is. This is due entirely to the platter density of modern UDMA drives vs. SCSI. You don't get 60GB platters on SCSI drives.
For random access and such, SCSI is still king. That's also due in part to platter density (note high density generally hahahaha higher seek times), and of course your command queuing, and general higher RPM scsi drives (15k RPM).
In all cases I will put money on you putting whatever SCSI drive ina desktop system. and me putting whatever UDMA drive in, and I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference.
There is just no real reason except in high-end multi-disk arrays that I see to use SCSI these days. And I used to be a SCSI zealot, with it on my desktop, etc. For webservers and such, that don't have huge random access requirements we just do RAID 1 UDMA (granted, not shitty RAID like promise, etc.). I have yet to lose customer data, for over 3 years of doing this. SATA is making using SCSI for these types of applications even less appealing.
We do use SCSI in like our SQL servers, where we have use 8 cheetah x15.3's in RAID10. Nothing even comes close to touching SCSI for high-end multi-disk RAID systems. Period.
-Phil
|