+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: scsi HDD VS SSD

  1. #1
    Shadowlander
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    17

    Default scsi HDD VS SSD

    ok well I've worked with scsi raid setups on workstations and servers before but never the new SSDs how do they compare.
    Oh and if the belongs in off topic sorry
    CPU:AMD Phenom II X6 @ 3.2Ghz MoBo: GIGABYTE GA-870A-UD3 RAM: 8GB Mushkin Enhanced Silverline Video: GeForce GTS 450 HD: HITACHI 1TB

  2. #2
    Shield of Telara
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toki Wartooth View Post
    ok well I've worked with scsi raid setups on workstations and servers before but never the new SSDs how do they compare.
    Oh and if the belongs in off topic sorry
    Platter drives are always going to be slower.

    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/sto...b-ssd-review/7

    just read through that a bit. That is about 9 months old, but the SSD tech has only gotten better since. Add to that the SATA III SSD's are going to be mainstream soon and those are SATA II.

    I can't tell you for sure that the spinpoint F3 is the fastest hard drive there is, but they said it was at the time.

  3. #3
    Shadowlander
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    17

    Default

    yea they didnt test any scsi's in that article but SSD seem to be going down an scsi is staying where it has been. SATA 3 doesnt really matter cause most the SSDs max read/write is around 1.5g. but hopefully that goes up.
    CPU:AMD Phenom II X6 @ 3.2Ghz MoBo: GIGABYTE GA-870A-UD3 RAM: 8GB Mushkin Enhanced Silverline Video: GeForce GTS 450 HD: HITACHI 1TB

  4. #4
    Plane Walker deehoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    383

    Default

    SCSI is old school server, the SSD's are freaky fast I run a large SSD (Mushkin to be exact) and its was faster than any HD Ive had which includes SCSI and Raptors. The SSD wasnt really ready for primetime 2 years ago but its hitting its stride now. Id use A large SSD for booting and running games and a fast SATA for mass storage.

  5. #5
    Shield of Telara
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toki Wartooth View Post
    yea they didnt test any scsi's in that article but SSD seem to be going down an scsi is staying where it has been. SATA 3 doesnt really matter cause most the SSDs max read/write is around 1.5g. but hopefully that goes up.
    Look at a velociraptor compared to an SSD, which is as close to a scsi drive as you are going to get and it is on the SATA II buss too.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ance,2518.html

    the scsi interface is max 320 MB/s the SATA II is 3.0 GB/s and the SATA III is 6.0 GB/s so just on transfer rate alone the scsi buss looks like a dinosaur
    Last edited by Maverick494; 02-08-2011 at 10:31 PM.

  6. #6
    Shadowlander
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Yea i know they are dated i have a few laying around and 2 raid cards but im talking about for building a test server doing a lot of SQL and some server side scripting like PHP but mostly as database/file storage.

    but correct me if Im wrong cause Im not an expert on how the different raid layers work because Im not an expert on them.
    Raid lay 5 with 3 7200 RPM 16MB Cache Sata 3's would be faster than 1 SSD drive hat has like 550MB/s write/read

    If i remember right raid 5 uses 3 or more hards as if they were 1 spreading the data across them for faster read/write or is that a different raid lvl or am I just 100% wrong
    Edit: btw i did just change the subject but I just didnt want to start a thread
    Last edited by Toki Wartooth; 02-08-2011 at 10:38 PM.
    CPU:AMD Phenom II X6 @ 3.2Ghz MoBo: GIGABYTE GA-870A-UD3 RAM: 8GB Mushkin Enhanced Silverline Video: GeForce GTS 450 HD: HITACHI 1TB

  7. #7
    Shield of Telara
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toki Wartooth View Post
    Yea i know they are dated i have a few laying around and 2 raid cards but im talking about for building a test server doing a lot of SQL and some server side scripting like PHP but mostly as database/file storage.

    but correct me if Im wrong cause Im not an expert on how the different raid layers work because Im not an expert on them.
    Raid lay 5 with 3 7200 RPM 16MB Cache Sata 3's would be faster than 1 SSD drive hat has like 550MB/s write/read

    Edit: btw i did just change the subject but I just didnt want to start a thread
    yes and no, you are comparing a raid to a non-raided drive. Plus I believe that most of the newer SSD's support TRIM in Raid 0, which means that your throughput on them would be far better than anything a platter drive can do.

    If you were going to be running a data base server my recommendation would be to use a Raid 0 array of 2 256GB SSD's with the Raid 5 layer of 32 or 64 MB cache 7200 RPM hard drives for your data.

    That way you can use the SSD's for the apps and OS and whatever other programs you are going to use on the front end for a fast load on them and then the back end data is still relatively secure and fast enough to load the data. Or you could also just use a single SSD for the main OS/Apps/whatever and the Raid 5 with platter drives for data.

  8. #8
    Shadowlander
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Thanks for the advise. I know i was comparing apples to oranges but it was because that HDD is about $45 ea while that SDD was about $600
    CPU:AMD Phenom II X6 @ 3.2Ghz MoBo: GIGABYTE GA-870A-UD3 RAM: 8GB Mushkin Enhanced Silverline Video: GeForce GTS 450 HD: HITACHI 1TB

  9. #9
    Plane Walker deehoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick494 View Post
    yes and no, you are comparing a raid to a non-raided drive. Plus I believe that most of the newer SSD's support TRIM in Raid 0, which means that your throughput on them would be far better than anything a platter drive can do.

    If you were going to be running a data base server my recommendation would be to use a Raid 0 array of 2 256GB SSD's with the Raid 5 layer of 32 or 64 MB cache 7200 RPM hard drives for your data.

    That way you can use the SSD's for the apps and OS and whatever other programs you are going to use on the front end for a fast load on them and then the back end data is still relatively secure and fast enough to load the data. Or you could also just use a single SSD for the main OS/Apps/whatever and the Raid 5 with platter drives for data.
    Yup I have a rig that runs dual mushkin 256 gig SSD's in raid 0, or striping as we use to cal it in the old days. I boot windows 7 in under 20 seconds Ill actually time it I bet its more like 15....I giggle just thinking about it.

  10. #10
    Shield of Telara
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toki Wartooth View Post
    Thanks for the advise. I know i was comparing apples to oranges but it was because that HDD is about $45 ea while that SDD was about $600
    You're right its not cheap, however you also should have a screaming fast machine forever. If you build it right it could last 10 years for what you are talking about doing with it.

  11. #11
    Plane Walker deehoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Though SSDs have their issues you need to remember they have no moving parts, use less energy, make little or no heat are absolutely silent and are very small. The price is less than you would expect if you look on newegg there are some really good deals.

  12. #12
    Plane Walker Anakha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deehoney View Post
    Though SSDs have their issues you need to remember they have no moving parts, use less energy, make little or no heat are absolutely silent and are very small. The price is less than you would expect if you look on newegg there are some really good deals.
    Get one with a Sandforce controller. OCZ, I believe, Makes one of the faster SSDs on the market.
    CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 965 3.4 GHz RAM: 8 GB GSkill Ripjaw DDR3 1333 MOBO: Gigabyte GA-MA790GPT-UD3H Case: Cooler Master ATCS 840

    GPU: Crossfired Dual XFX ATI HD 5850 PSU: Cooler Master Silent Pro Gold 800 W modular PSU Storage: Western Digital Caviar black 1 TB x2 Raid 0

    Keyboard: Logitech G110 Mouse: Logitech G9x O.S.: Windows 7 Pro 64 bit

  13. #13
    Plane Walker deehoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anakha View Post
    Get one with a Sandforce controller. OCZ, I believe, Makes one of the faster SSDs on the market.
    Thats why I use Mushkin SSDs all sandforce 1200 and up controllers

  14. #14
    Champion
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chi-Town
    Posts
    555

    Default

    I've been a huge proponent of SCSI for years however technology moves on and even the fastest of SCSI/SAS drives have a hard time matching even the most basic of SSDs now. IF I was to invest in a platform I'd look at something like OCZ's RevoDrive X2 (PCIe SSD), the latest use iirc 4 sandforce controllers in RAID 0, 120GB running on sale about $260-300ish, not a bad price if you look at other SSDs.
    CPU: AMD FX 9370@ 5.1Ghz Cooling: Corsair H100
    Mem: 32GB GSkill 1.5V 9-9-9
    HDD: 1 OCZ SSD (boot drive), 2x OCZ SSD in Raid 0 (game drive) 1x 2TB (backup)
    GPU: Sapphire 290
    Asus VH242H (1920x1080p) X3 for 5760 x 1080 Goodness

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts