Scsi vs Sata Which one would be better for me ?

[Nlandas]

nikodr wrote:
I always think of the performance of scsi vs sata.
On my pc which is an amd64 3200+ i use sata disk and some ide drives too.

However lately i wanted to think wether it would be good to change the sata to scsi.

SCSI in this case now SAS(Serial Attached SCSI) has always outperformed IDE/SATA. However, today in practical application on a single user multitasking OS - SATA more than meets the needs. SAS is mostly used now in server based applications to provide faster data access in the multiple user environment.

If money is an object then just use SATA, it will work just fine for you. It's a lot faster than the old IDE standards.

Now on a classic Amiga - SCSI is the best option simply because when they were built SCSI was the superior drive technology hands down. IDE will do the trick but I've run Amigas with UW SCSI versus the standard IDE and there was a huge difference. However, good luck finding controllers and compatible drives.

-Nyle

[Zac67]

- Parallel SCSI is dead
- SAS is great for heavy load (high RPM for high throughput and low seek latency, tagged command queueing is also a good solution for multiple simultaneous I/O jobs) but very expensive and runs hot
- SATA is a very good solution for desktop and workstation usage (even simpler servers) - very good cost/performance ratio, high capacities; if native command queueing works it even makes up for the traditional command/response bottleneck of multiple I/O

Go SAS when you require the highest performance you can buy, but prepare for paying several times the price of SATA.

[terminator4]

For A1200 CF will do just fine.
For PC desktop, stick to SATA, SCSI is nice but cost prohibitive.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Zac67 wrote:
- Parallel SCSI is dead
- SAS is great for heavy load (high RPM for high throughput and low seek latency, tagged command queueing is also a good solution for multiple simultaneous I/O jobs) but very expensive and runs hot

Well, since Windows loves to swap...
I read somewhere someone used a small and fast SCSI harddisk for the OS, and a big (S)ATA harddisk for the rest.
Sounds logical to me.

[Zac67]

Why swap? RAM's so cheap there's no problem throwing 4 Gigs (or even 8 with a 64 bit OS) on the board. Less spent for RAM than for a SAS HBA alone - and waaaay faster.

[Trev]

Parallel SCSI is not dead, but it is dying.

I think it's time for everyone to review how and why Windows (and every other modern operating system) uses swap space--it's not just "virtual memory". At the same time, review how the object cache has changed from Vista forward and dispel any myths. Then, with an eye toward objectivity, let's all debate the pros and cons of Microsoft's implementations.

Regarding SCSI v. SATA, single disks v. arrays, etc., there is no panacea. The correct solution depends on the target application, and ultimately, what you can afford. This is why people do cost-benefit analyses.