Build a FAQ

[James]

No, not a FAQ about the site - a FAQ covering some of the questions asked often in forums like this.

Perhaps if people can contribute ideas and answers in this thread, then we can clear it all up and post it somewhere else, perhaps an HTML page posted on this site? I don't think a forum is the right, uh, forum.

BTW if anyone posts a response and you feel it can be done better, please by all means suggest the corrections. If it gets into a big fight, we can start another thread to hash it out!

Note some repetitions for clarity.

I'll start off with a structure and some questions, because they're easier than answers (it's late) :

1. Introduction
1.1 Contributors
1.2 Acknowledgements

2. IDE

2.1 Interface and controller questions
2.1.1 Will changing from ATA33 to ATA66/100/133 make my drive faster?
2.1.2 What is the maximum drive size for ATA33/66/100 interfaces?
2.1.3 What is the maximum drive size for ATA133?
2.1.4 What add in IDE controller cards are there?
2.1.5 What drives use ATA133 interfaces?
2.1.6 Can I use an IDE drive in a Firewire/USB2.0 external enclosure?
2.1.7 What options are there for removable hard drives?
2.1.7.1 How many insertions/removals can a removable caddy take before damaging the connector?
2.1.7.2 Do removable caddies impact performance?

2.2 Drive performance questions
2.2.1 What's the fastest IDE drive right now?
2.2.2 When will there be 10,000 RPM IDE drives?
2.2.3 What sort of performance advantage will I get with a WD 1000JB/1200JB?
2.2.4 What's a good choice for drives for low cost video editing? What sustained transfer rate will they achieve?
2.2.5 What's a good choice for a large drive to store MP3s, DiVX etc.?
2.2.6 What's a good choice for a boot drive?
2.2.7 What's a good choice for a quiet, fast drive?
2.2.8 What's a good choice for drives for a database?
2.2.9 What's a good choice for a drive for gaming and office applications?
2.2.10 How do I improve drive perfomance in Linux?
2.2.11 Does SCSI use less CPU time than IDE?
2.2.12 Does SCSI multitask better than IDE?
2.2.13 Which IDE drives support command queue reordering?

2.3 Reliability questions
2.3.1 What's the story with the IBM 75GXP series of drives?
2.3.2 Are SCSI drives made to higher standards than IDE drives?

2.4 IDE-specific RAID
2.4.1 Will RAID0 improve my gaming experience?
2.4.2 Should I use hardware or software RAID?
2.4.3 What IDE RAID controllers are there, and which is best?
2.4.4 Is 3ware still making IDE RAID controllers?
2.4.5 Can I get hot-swappable IDE RAID?
2.4.6 Can I get hot spares in an IDE RAID array?

3. SCSI

3.1 Interface questions
3.1.1 What are the different SCSI interfaces?
3.1.2 What's the difference between synchronous and asynchronous?
3.1.3 What's the difference between Ultra 160 and Ultra 320?
3.1.4 How do I terminate a SCSI chain?
3.1.5 What is SCA?
3.1.6 Is there a reasonably-priced hot swap SCSI drive bay?

3.2 Performance questions
3.2.1 What's the fastest SCSI drive?
3.2.2 What's a good general usage drive?
3.2.3 What's a good, quiet SCSI drive?
3.2.4 How quiet are the 15,000RPM drives?
3.2.5 Is SCSI faster than IDE?
3.2.6 Does SCSI use less CPU time than IDE?
3.2.7 Does SCSI multitask better than IDE?

3.3 Controller questions
3.2.1 Do I need an Ultra 320 controller?
3.2.2 Is Adaptec better than Tekram?
3.2.3 Should I get a bare card or a retail pack?
3.2.4 What does the SYMBIOS option in the motherboard BIOS do?
3.2.5 How do I make my SCSI drive the boot (C drive?

3.4 SCSI-specific RAID
3.4.1 What's a good SCSI RAID card?
3.4.2 What's zero channel RAID?

4. RAID

4.1 RAID levels
4.1.1 What are the different RAID levels?
4.1.2 Which is the fastest RAID level?
4.1.3 Will RAID0 improve my gaming performance?

4.2 Configuration suggestions
4.2.1 How should I set up the disks on a database server?
4.2.2 How should I set up the disks on a file server?

... well, it's a start anyway.

 

[Tannin]

An excellent suggestion, James. Looks like a heck of a lot of work, but why not? It would be a resource of real value.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Guys... if we're to distant ourselves from SR, a move like this will be a serious blow for them... and will probably arouse sour remarks from Eugene/Davin cause they have already a similar FAQ...

Although a terrific idea indeed, James, I wanted for some time now to propose to keep this forum online yes, but change its name to a more IT-generalized site, something like Fixtures' Corner or Old Dogs Online... :lol:

No, jokes apart... I've already ICQed Doug about it. We must seriously kill whatever reminds Storage-... for two reasons:
The first, apparent, we have to avoid conflicts with Eugene's SR.
Second, what the hell? When was the last time we talked about HDs here?!

Please, tell me what you think.

 

[Mercutio]

How 'bout opening up our FAQ with some wider computer questions?

A few off the top of my head:
Why is my modem connection faster/slower than its rated speed?
How do I get a faster connection from my modem?
Why are there cracks and hisses in sound from my sound card?
Why does sound card stutter sometimes?
Why can't I hear audio from a CD-ROM through my computer speakers?

etc.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Well, if that wasn't ironic... I AGREE 100%. In the beginning it will seem hilarious, but as the FAQ becomes big and strong it will grow to a real lighthouse!

 

[James]

I see it as being a web page, not a discussion area. It's not intended to pull traffic away from SR at all. Heck, they can host it if they like.

My intention was to do most of the discussion here, given the participants here I feel that the discussion will be much more focussed and have less distractions. In short, we can keep a tighter reign on it here.

I'm happy to have it extended, but I suggest we do the bits we are particularly focused on - ie. storage - first before we move onto something larger.

 

[Stereodude]

You can't forget the last point.

5.0.1 Will anyone actually read this FAQ before asking a question on the forum?



Stereodude

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I read FAQs... I remember reading the whole SR FAQ regarding IDE RAID. That's how I understood how it worked exactly and dismissed the idea of placing one in my PC using the cheap mobo-onboard controllers... :wink:

 

[Tannin]

Guys... if we're to distant ourselves from SR, a move like this will be a serious blow for them... and will probably arouse sour remarks from Eugene/Davin cause they have already a similar FAQ...

Err, Prof, you do know who created the Storage Review FAQ in the first place, don't you? (Hint: it was someone involved with this thread, and I don't mean me.)

Stereodude: 5.0.1 is indeed an significant question. Still, at least it would give people an excuse to answer newbie questions EBB style - "read the FAQ first".

All: it would be a heck of a lot of work. Well, no harm in that.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Who did?
:?:

 

[Tannin]

James.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

James.

:roll:

Sorry for my stratospheric ignorance...

 

[Tea]

No problem, Prof. It was a long time ago. Back when James had all his hair, Bigfoots were still being manufactured by a company called Quantum, DB was drinking cheap cask sherry and keeling over after the second glass, Tin Mad Dog was hand-crafting anti-helicopter caps out of aluminium foil, and I was still lazing about taking things easy in the womb.

Come to think of it, why don't I go back there? It was warm and comfortable, no work to do, and I didn't have to put up with Tannin. :wink:

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Come to think of it, why don't I go back there? It was warm and comfortable, no work to do, and I didn't have to put up with Tannin. :wink:

Well, if you happen to get an issue of Scientific American of February 2002, turn to page 18.

They've almost turned out one of the safest methods of prenatal diagnosis (the Ultrasound Scan- profs preach us every day and in every subfield of medicine how good, economic, and effective US are...) a possible "disturbing" experience for the baby...

LOL, we're nowhere safe...

 

[James]

Do I detect a low level of interest, or is it a high level of laziness?

I swear, you'll all whine and complain about things if I write the answers myself. Better to skip the agony and start writing some responses yourselves. :mrgrn:

 

[timwhit]

Do I detect a low level of interest, or is it a high level of laziness?

I swear, you'll all whine and complain about things if I write the answers myself. Better to skip the agony and start writing some responses yourselves. :mrgrn:

I think its more laziness than anything...I would try to write some answers, but I don't think I'm qualified to answer a good many of them.

Many of those questions are of a general nature. Which makes it hard to give a specific answer. I could write a book on a few of those questions, not that anyone would want to read it

-Tim

 

[timwhit]

I was bored so I wrote up an answer to a question. There are probably lots of errors, feel free to rip it apart....

2.3.2 Are SCSI drives made to higher standards than IDE drives?

The short answer is yes. Though, this is not always the case. For the most part SCSI drives offer a 5-year warranty, whereas IDE drives only offer 3-years and some value class drives only offer a 1-year warranty. This is not to say that all SCSI drives will work for 5-years or IDE drives for 3-years, it merely is an indication that the workmanship of the SCSI drives is higher than the IDE counterparts. Another factor to throw into the equation is that SCSI drives often have a much higher price tag than IDE drives do. Many believe that this higher price tag indicates that better parts and more scrutiny went into the SCSI drive than the IDE drive.

Most SCSI drives a made for use in enterprise server settings, whereas most IDE drives are made for the consumer market. There is a new class of IDE drives coming out that fit better into the server setting than they do the consumer market. It has yet to be determined whether these drives are built to higher standards than the value class of IDE drives though.

 

[James]

Hmmm, a controversial one to start (thanks!).

My current thinking on this issue is heavily influenced by Mickey on SR, who says the build quality is essentially no different.

http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?p=7934&highlight=#7934

I suspect that the cache is optimised more for server than desktop use with SCSI drives, though. What does everyone else think?

 

[timwhit]

I don't think Mickey's post directly corresponds to that question though, he is mainly talking about where the innovations occur, not the build quality. One thing that I take out of his post is that more mature technology make it into SCSI drives. Things that are tried and true, mainly drive heads...

-Tim

 

[Tannin]

I know it says little about the quality of the components inside the drive, but I have always been impressed by the visible attention to detail you see in the better SCSI drives. Pick up an X15, say, and look at the standard of the finish, or an old 500MB Fujitsi SCSI drive for that matter. Then look at a mass-market IDE drive and compare it. Sure, it's the bits on the inside that count, but the extra trouble they go to to make an X15 look nicer than a Barracuda ATA gives me a message. The maker is telling me: 'I care about this drive."

 

[timwhit]

Tannin, shall we include that in the FAQ?

 

[Tannin]

By all means, Tim, if you want to. You seem to have elected yourself Minister in Charge of Question 2.3.2 - you decide! Then, if lots of people disagree with you, I can say it was all your fault!

Seriously though, the best things are not planned in any detail and thought through long in advance, they just evolve. Who wants a crack at another question?

 

[timwhit]

James, I just read that thread that you linked to, man I'm glad I wasn't paying attention to it when it was going on....

Who wants a crack at another question?

Well you're awake, go for it!

-Tim

 

[James]

I don't think Mickey's post directly corresponds to that question though, he is mainly talking about where the innovations occur, not the build quality. One thing that I take out of his post is that more mature technology make it into SCSI drives. Things that are tried and true, mainly drive heads...

Yes, that's true - although he also says that the new stuff, mostly to deal with high RPMs, goes into SCSI too. Mickey had a more definitive discussion of this point back in the old forum - alas, it is gone. Perhaps we could ask him his opinion directly?

 

[James]

James, I just read that thread that you linked to, man I'm glad I wasn't paying attention to it when it was going on....

Yeah. That Ritteri&Bubbles guy did much to make the SR forums unpleasant to visit.

 

[James]

Tim :

http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=1484

I should try to contact Mickey privately and see if it's okay to use a mixture of his and your response, what do you think?

 

[timwhit]

James, if you have the time I would like to see what you get if you take both answers and combine them. The two things that confuse me about Mickey's post are:

"I suppose you can argue that because of the above reasons, SCSI drives ought to be more reliable, and I suspect they are, to a certain degree. I don't think they are vastly more reliable, though, and for most applications, I'll continue to use IDE drives, as they provide the best value."

&

"I'm just waiting for someone with 20 years of experience in the industry to shoot down everything I just wrote."

The second quote seems to me that Mickey might not be a definitive source for this. It is obvious that he does have some knowledge of drive manufacturing, but not a definitive source....

So, is that original question asking if SCSI drives are more reliable or better built? Two different questions, but with similar answers.

One answer to better built could be: the parts have been tested more, and all the problems have been resolved. So the part is better. That’s how my logic is working here.....

-Tim

PS if you don't understand what the hell I'm talking about let me know and I will rephrase it.[/quote]

 

[timwhit]

James: Make sure you check out that thread you linked to...

http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=1484

-Tim

 

[James]

Tim,

Yeah, thanks. I think that Mickey is the closest thing to a "man on the inside" we have - my guess is he works for Seagate but feel free to have your own guess.

I think the key thing is what he said in response to you :

It all comes back to using more mature technology. In that sense, yes, SCSI drives *should* be more reliable. However, it's not like many people believe, that SCSI is much more reliable because it uses better materials, or that IDE uses leftovers or designs that are first proven out on SCSI, or that SCSI designs are inherently superior. It's a little more complicated than that.

I'll have a stab at a combined response tomorrow. (Ugh, I'm so far behind on all the things I should be doing...)

 

[Mercutio]

Sweetshon on SR works for Seagate.

My guess is that Mickey works for WD - he's commented on differences between WD drives sold in retail and to OEMs... not the sort of distinctions someone who DOESN'T work for WD would be party to.

I also had a correspondence with a Maxtor engineer a few months ago - a reader but not member of SR's forums. If y'all can decide on a wording I'll pass it on to him as well.

 

[timwhit]

Tony- I notice you are watching both of the threads where James and I are arguing about this same topic....I know you have something that is worth saying. So out with it!