SCSI vs. IDE which is better?

[IG-88]

I've been thinking about trying a SCSI setup lately and wanted to get some opinions on it. Anyone ever tried these before? Any advantages or disadvantages?

[Jdurg]

I believe that SCSI has a faster maximum transfer rate possible which may mean quicker load times, and I think it also has a built in back-up of the data that I don't think IDE has.  This also means you need more drive space for an overall equivalent free space.

[Justin Z]

No SCSI doesn't have redundant data storage by default.  It is actually older than IDE.  If you have a choice, and you already have a good quality SCSI controller, I would take it over IDE, but frankly it's not going to make much difference when you're loading 40kb rom files; therefore I don't feel like it's worth spending additional money on.  You might notice a few seconds' improvement in OS load time, tops.

If that's your goal, I might recommend you just add more RAM.

[IG-88]

Well, to be frank about it, I don't know anything about SCSI but only have heard bits & pieces about it over the last few years. The reason I was thinking about going that route was the price of SCSI drives are alot lower that IDE drives. That and I'd just like to learn more about them.

You said something about a controller. What are they exactly? Maybe I'd better do some research on the whole SCSI architecture.....

[hypernova]

About seven years ago, I had a SCSI setup.  However, when something went down, there were no spare parts to try to figure out what was wrong, since it was so expensive, and no one I knew had any stuff to use.

I'd just stick with IDE...SCSI is not worth the additional hassle anyways, IMO, and there are other hassles.  Termination, special cards, the correct pin connectors, etc.

[taz-nz]

Both standard are rapidly becoming obsolete, IDE has been replaced by SATA and SCSI by SAS (Serial Attached SCSI).

Seagate has aready said it will stop manufacturing IDE hard drives as of the end of this year, but they may still sell them under the Maxtor brand now that they own it.

All major server hardware brands have now switched to SAS over SCSI, with scsi options only retained to support TAPE drives etc.

SCSI has a better command structure than IDE, SATA borrows some of this in the form of NCQ, SCSI is good for when you have large numbers of drive, as one controller can handle 15 devices per channel, as where IDE is limited to 2 per channel.

The reason I was thinking about going that route was the price of SCSI drives are alot lower that IDE drives.

That the first time I've ever seen that said, but if your buying second hand drives I can beleave it, as loads of older serves running SCSI are being replaced with Core 2  based Xeon setups with SATA & SAS these days. So there are probably lots of older small SCSI drives kicking around.

The Control is often the most expensive part with SCSI and if you don't have one the just forget it.

SATA is the future for the desktop, IDE is dead or soon will be.

Low-end Servers or large storage server have switched to SATA as well, With high prefromance or servers with high I/O needs running SAS.

SATA is your safest bet these day, drive space is cheep there fast enough for most people, if you want more speed there are the 10,000rpm Raptors from Western Digital, if you want reliablity WD also makes their SATA RAID additions which are designed for 24/7 operation.

I'm personally looking at 15K SAS, RAID-0 setup in the new year, but I'm a speed freak.    

[Jdurg]

Ahhhhh yes, RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives).  THAT is where the drive redundancy is, not SCSI.  I don't know why I thought SCSI was the redundant data type setup?  Could be because I know a lot of RAID Setups are SCSI drives.

[IG-88]

Speed? No. Cost, was/is my main concern. I'm always on the lookout for cheaper way of doing things. I may try and get one setup tho, just to say I did it. I like to try different ideas.

[AtomSmasher]

SCSI is outdated, go with a SATA setup.  It should also be cheaper and easier to do then SCSI. 

On a side note, I had a SCSI system 9 or so years ago and I still remember my friends were in awe when I was able to burn a cd (at a screaming 4x speed) and was able to surf the web at the same time.  On an IDE setup back then you would always get a buffer underrun error if you did anything else on your computer while it was burning.  Good times.

[AtomSmasher]

Speed? No. Cost, was/is my main concern. I'm always on the lookout for cheaper way of doing things. I may try and get one setup tho, just to say I did it. I like to try different ideas.

Well since it sounds like you don't have a SCSI controller board, its most likely cheaper to stick with IDE.

[divemaster127]

Sata drives are so cheap now I would not waste my time or money on a old scsi setup anymore, I remember what a pain those were to setup

[stephenp1983]

For what your doing scsi isn't necessary.  It would be beneficial in server data storage type environment, but not for this.  Its also still very expensive.  I second using a sata setup.

[SpeedEng]

well if you want the best just get one of those SSD drives 

[Avrus]

well if you want the best just get one of those SSD drives 

Hah! I was going to post the exact same thing.  100,000 i/o's a second.

Insane.

[IG-88]

I'm not at all concerned about speed. What on God's green earth would I want to spend hundreds & hundreds of dollars on speedy drives to run a MAME cab for?? I got a line on a couple of SCSI drives and a motherboard with an integrated SCSI controller all for under $30.

The main reasons I'm thinking about this is 1: cost, which will be minimal, 2: the fact that I've never taken the time to learn anything about SCSI, and 3: Why not? I realize it's a dead-end standard but I'm really starting to like this old stuff. I'm probably the only S.O.B. on this board thats actually going backwards when it comes to hardware. I've lately been scouring the local Goodwill's & Salvation Army stores on the look out for 386's, 486's and the like...

I appreciate all the opinions tho 

[TOK]

I'm not at all concerned about speed. What on God's green earth would I want to spend hundreds & hundreds of dollars on speedy drives to run a MAME cab for?? I got a line on a couple of SCSI drives and a motherboard with an integrated SCSI controller all for under $30.

The main reasons I'm thinking about this is 1: cost, which will be minimal, 2: the fact that I've never taken the time to learn anything about SCSI, and 3: Why not? I realize it's a dead-end standard but I'm really starting to like this old stuff. I'm probably the only S.O.B. on this board thats actually going backwards when it comes to hardware. I've lately been scouring the local Goodwill's & Salvation Army stores on the look out for 386's, 486's and the like...

I appreciate all the opinions tho 

My opinion is that IDE is better because its more common. I built the PC's for all of my MAME cabs with mostly left over hardware, and all the MB's already had IDE and I had old drives around from previous upgrades. Since they're a lot of older hardware, I don't want to go scouring ebay for some screwball part when something goes wrong.

My experience is that going cheap is never actually cheap. It either costs you in wasted time or unexpected expenses.

[IG-88]

I can see what you are saying but part of the fun for me is exactly that, scouring ebay for that right part. And as far as wasted time, it's a hobby therefore time doesn't "cost" me anything. Whatever I am doing if it's related to my hobby it's not wasted time. 

[CheffoJeffo]

And as far as wasted time, it's a hobby therefore time doesn't "cost" me anything. Whatever I am doing if it's related to my hobby it's not wasted time. 

Says the man who has never battled to configure a cheap SCSI system .... 

[divemaster127]

Each to his own but after eide cameout, sata etc, I swore I would NEVER touch a scsi again nothing but a headache, you can get a new 160 gig sata drive for $50.00 & prob cheaper used on ebay

[CheffoJeffo]

Each to his own but after eide cameout, sata etc, I swore I would NEVER touch a scsi again nothing but a headache, you can get a new 160 gig sata drive for $50.00 & prob cheaper used on ebay

I have at least a couple of working (last I checked) SCSI cards/drives lying around, so the cost to me would be free ... well below IG-88's $30 and I will choose to buy a cheap IDE or SATA drive for use in a MAME box every time.

[Justin Z]

On a side note, I had a SCSI system 9 or so years ago and I still remember my friends were in awe when I was able to burn a cd (at a screaming 4x speed) and was able to surf the web at the same time.  On an IDE setup back then you would always get a buffer underrun error if you did anything else on your computer while it was burning.  Good times.

Heh, how funny.

My first PC, a 386DX-25, was a real blazer in 1990 terms.  It had a SCSI hard drive which could read data at a whopping 400KB/sec.    I think the next best option, an ISA interface, would've topped out around 250KB/sec in those days.

[IG-88]

And as far as wasted time, it's a hobby therefore time doesn't "cost" me anything. Whatever I am doing if it's related to my hobby it's not wasted time. 

Says the man who has never battled to configure a cheap SCSI system .... 

Oh boy, now I'm gonna have to do it! 

[IG-88]

Each to his own but after eide cameout, sata etc, I swore I would NEVER touch a scsi again nothing but a headache, you can get a new 160 gig sata drive for $50.00 & prob cheaper used on ebay

I have at least a couple of working (last I checked) SCSI cards/drives lying around, so the cost to me would be free ... well below IG-88's $30 and I will choose to buy a cheap IDE or SATA drive for use in a MAME box every time.

Cool. Send them my way and save me some $$ 

[FrizzleFried]

Frys had a 320GB SATA drive at $89.00 last week.

How can you argue with that?

[CheffoJeffo]

Each to his own but after eide cameout, sata etc, I swore I would NEVER touch a scsi again nothing but a headache, you can get a new 160 gig sata drive for $50.00 & prob cheaper used on ebay

I have at least a couple of working (last I checked) SCSI cards/drives lying around, so the cost to me would be free ... well below IG-88's $30 and I will choose to buy a cheap IDE or SATA drive for use in a MAME box every time.

Cool. Send them my way and save me some $$ 

Each of the drives (5.25" double height) weighs a ton ... you could drop them off a building through the hood of a car and they would still run ... probably about $90+ in shipping alone ... and then you need to deal with drivers for your OS of choice (which you haven't mentioned and is the most important aspect of your decision).

 

[TOK]

I can see what you are saying but part of the fun for me is exactly that, scouring ebay for that right part. And as far as wasted time, it's a hobby therefore time doesn't "cost" me anything. Whatever I am doing if it's related to my hobby it's not wasted time. 

The cabinets, control panels and games are fun for me. I just want the computer to be stable enough that I can forget its buried in there. If you said you were going to learn Linux via MAME configuration, I'd see that as valuable learning tool.

Different conceptions on the value of time I guess. Waiting a week for a 6 year old hard drive, then hoping I could get it to work when I could be playing that same day doesn't appeal to me. Good luck!

[leapinlew]

SCSI will add quite a bit of time to your boot up every time - not good.

Also, on your initial installation you may be required to install additional drivers. This is done through a floppy and a floppy drive and hitting F6 during the initial installation of any of the windows versions.

Also, I'm not aware of any SCSI drives being cheaper than IDE drives. The reason we use SCSI is for maximum throughput. We used to use SCSI for throughput AND reliability but I think newer IDE/SATA drives seem to be just as reliable as SCSI.