SCSI -> SATA

[orange]

Since those large SCSI HDDs are outrageously expensive, would something like this work:

linky

those slim sata cables are just sooo cool   :-)

[B00tDisk]

orange wrote:
Since those large SCSI HDDs are outrageously expensive, would something like this work:

linky

those slim sata cables are just sooo cool   :-)

\

Why not just ditch SCSI altogether?  LLF the drives or zero them out using factory software, e-bay 'em and get yourself a nice inexpensive and sweet 500 gig SATA drive.

[justthatgood]

Yummy, if I had any decent (or any) SCSI adapter for my 4000 , I would take one of the two 120GB SATA I have in my XP machine and put it in my Miggy I guess.

But hey, it's SCSI for performance.  I mean error detection and all that good jazz.  It's that why all the Video Toaster setup's I've seen call for SCSI ?? Isn't SATA just a weird variant of IDE.

Something I would think.

[orange]

@B00tDisk
um, yes and how do I connect it to Oktagon/Fastlane/MKI ??

@justthatgood
IMHO, those new high capacity SATA disk that cannot really be slower than SCSI ones that are in the same price range. especially not on Amiga where CPU/bus is limiting the speed (not considering A1)
error detection?? wouldn't really worry about that too, they have probably improved it after so many years of development. besides if something fails its probably gonna be mechanical error and that part is identical in scsi/(s)ata, right?

[blobrana]

besides if something fails its probably gonna be mechanical error and that part is identical in scsi/(s)ata, right?

Hum,
"if it moves it can be killed" - Conan.

Gigabyte's i-RAM storage device

[trgse]

 besides if something fails its probably gonna be mechanical error and that part is identical in scsi/(s)ata, right?

nope, SCSI hardrives is not mechanicaly identical to ata/sata drives... a scsi drive is always of a far higher and better quality than any ATA/SATA/SATA2 drives... and THAT is why they are more expensive, you want quality, you must pay quality prices. but then you will at least not have your drive deciding to flip a fuse and destroy all the data on it at a whim.

[Oliver]

These days, I think it's often true that ATA and SCSI drives are very similar internally.  Some manufacturers have stated this fact, when producing two different interfaces for the same drive.  I'm not sure what the current state of the technology is these days, but previously SCSI had a strong advantage in managing multiple storage devices simultaneously.  Previously SCSI devices often had superior mechanical design/testing, and better predictive logic for multiple task management, seeking, and overall throughput.  Since IDE has been using better DMA systems, and high speed serial transfer has come a long way in the past several years, I'm not sure how much of a difference there is any more.  At least if one is using a single drive, I don't think there is much (any?) advantage in using SCSI.  That wasn't really true 10 to 15 years ago, but IDE has definitely improved a lot.  I have read that high priced SCSI drives are designed/tested to have much greater longevity and reliability for critical server applications, but who knows?

Is anyone here involved in storage design?

-Oli

[Oliver]

nope, SCSI hardrives is not mechanicaly identical to ata/sata drives... a scsi drive is always of a far higher and better quality than any ATA/SATA/SATA2 drives...

Hmm, I remember previously talking to a hard drive company rep about this (maybe Quantum, but can't remember clearly).  He told me that for the drive model I was considering, they manufactured two versions of the drive, but the mechanics were the same.  He could have been wrong though.  Can't remember what his job title was.

[amigagr]

for years at work with scsi disks (video machine and silicon graphics work stations) we did not lost a byte, but the last 2 years with newer pc (premiere) and ide/sata drives we lost 2 stripe 0 raids -and work- because of malfunctions of the disks. :crazy:

[orange]

thats nice but you don't use Amigas at work, and Amiga is mostly not used as server.. :roll:

[adolescent]

But, why use this instead of a normal IDE->SCSI adapter?  Any modern IDE drive will outrun any Amiga SCSI controller.  Plus, the adapter and drive cost more for SATA version.

[bomrat]

if you got like a sata raptor 10k drive it would be the quality of a scsi drive but the 7200 rpm drives are not...

i am planning to put 2 146gb scsi drives i have laying around in my newly purchased a4000... hurray finally got an amiga 4000.

[orange]

I'd feel more comfortable to run 7200rpm (or even better 2.5" 5400rpm!)HDD for 24/7 than some 10-15k rpm. yeah they probably use better bearings but still..
besides, those things probably heat up a lot and draw a lot of power.

[justthatgood]

 :roll:

I myself never really thought of my two SATA drives Seagate Barracuda ST3120026AS and Seagate Barracuda ST3120023AS as that special.  Really I think they suck.  So far on my PC I've had them on a Promise Fasttrak S150 4 port RAID, and they ran like dogs (I bet it would have been only a marginal increase if I had them on a 66Mhz PCI.)  

I also had them one of my built on SATA Silicon Image controllers and they were like  :getmad: yuck.  What's even more is that I had my motherboard fail out on me, and I couldn't get the controller working to get stuff of the sata drive.  I've talked to a lot of recovery services and they really hate it when people bring them SATA drives to recover stuff off of them.

If I could, I would have me a U320 drive setup.  The only reason I would really use the SATA drives is the fact that they have slim data cable compared to normal IDE.

[Oliver]

justthatgood wrote:
...Really I think they suck.  So far on my PC I've had them on a Promise Fasttrak S150 4 port RAID, and they ran like dogs...

In what way did they run like dogs?  Were they slow, or did they have frequent errors?

-Oli