Slashdot Mirror
SCSI vs. IDE In The Real World
An anonymous reader writes "Gerard Beekmans has a really good comparison of the speeds of IDE and SCSI drives up over on devchannel.org. Should help put an end to the myth of IDE erasing SCSI's speed advantage." Note that Beekmans' test handicaps the SCSI disk a bit, with interesting results. (DevChannel, like Slashdot, is part of OSDN.)
a really good comparison of the speeds of IDE and SCSI drives
Oh please. With all due respect to the submitter and Mr. Beekmans, this "comparison" ignores all sorts of other factors: write caching, command overlap, rotational speeds, et al ad nauseum. Yes, some of these are mentioned but a comparison such as this should have hard numbers in a table not opinions. Not that I'm suprised or upset that SCSI trounces IDE, but his comparison is virtually meaningless.
There are many benchmarking suites out there, I'd suggest these be used for the next test to provide some meaningful results.
Trolling is a art,
and SCSI for servers. It is that simple, it will stay that way because of cost, not because of speed.
-Seriv
I can't believe this kind of bullshit gets posted on Slashdot. For those who didn't read the article (and I know you're out there), the guy compared how long it takes to open his maildir file in Mutt on SCSI and then IDE.
Since it went faster on his SCSI drive, he concludes that SCSI is faster. Wow! How comprehensive!
If Slashdot keeps this up, I hope they start to get a reputation like Tomshardware.com (those people are full of shit as well).
Negligble? Umm, when you can unpack a kernel in a third of the time and see a 6 and a half minute difference in large reads these performance gains are not negligble. If this was a hairline race that was a matter of a few seconds I could understand, but anyone who does work that is disk intensive will benifit from scsi.
Later,
Phil
And in the REAL real world, the author of this piece discovered that, for his application, the SCSI drive was at least 300% faster.
Why isn't his test, done with real world data, not a 'real world' test?
In the real world, you must also take into consideration cost. A fair test would be to take a budget of $500 and try two setups, one with IDE and one withSCSI, with any leftover cash spent buying as much RAM as possible. Then see which system perfoms better with a variety of benchmarks.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
That "benchmark" was ridiculous. "I have this two-year-old IDE hard drive and I'm going to benchmark it against this SCSI drive. Woop, look! It read my mail directory faster! SCSI must be better!"
Look, I'm not denying that SCSI is faster. But he neglected to even do any other tests! He also neglected to use a newer IDE drive, which hampered the IDE performance dramatically. (Who's going to use a 2MB cache IDE drive in any area where hard drive performance is critical?)
Personally, I'd like to see the test of an IDE RAID array running off a 3Ware card. For the price of one SCSI drive, you can get 3 8MB cache IDE drives, plus the 3Ware card. Oh, sure, it will probably still be a bit slower than SCSI. But at least the benchmarks will show some sort of logical comparison (and the benefit of IDE -- namely, tons of disk space.)
Is it just me, or have the articles posted on Slashdot recently been pretty lame? I just don't understand how some of this stuff gets posted to the front page. This is not a review. This is not a benchmark. It's one guy who tested one application of hard drives and made a conclusion based on that test. This type of stuff can be found in any newsgroup or forum on a daily basis. It should not have been posted to the front page of Slashdot.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
He tested a 40gb IDE drive versus a 9gb SCSI drive, both 7200 RPM. The SCSI drive was a lot faster, but this isn't any particular shock; this is pretty old hardware.
:-)
Basically he just told us that circa 2001, SCSI was faster. I think we mostly knew that already.
It would be a lot more interesting to see the test run with one of the 36gb WD Raptors. They are 10K RPM and are *very* fast drives. I use a pair of them striped as RAID 0 in my main desktop; they're faster than anything I've ever used before, including 10KRPM SCSI. (I haven't used 15KRPM SCSI, which I imagine is probably faster still, but very noisy, which is why I went with the Raptors. )
Note also that IDE drives in general are "tuned for desktop usage patterns". I'm not entirely sure what that entails, but I suspect it involves a lot of read-ahead caching; single-user systems tend to be actively reading only one or two things at a time. SCSI is tuned for server performance, and the test of "read lots of small files" is probably much closer to a "server" load than to a "desktop" load.
What I'd like to see is testing of streaming performance in working with really big files. That's something I do fairly frequently. How fast can you extract, say, a 500MB RAR file back to the same disk? How fast is it if you're reading from one and writing to a second? On a personal basis, I do that a lot more than putting 50,000 files in a directory and then reading every single one of them.
However, if I ever DO plan on putting 50,000 files in a directory and then reading all of them on a frequent basis, I'll be sure to choose SCSI.
One would expect the SCSI drives to consistently wallop similarly configured IDE drives (same buffer, spindle, size, #heads and every other physical characteristic you can think of) based solely on one observation: Tagged Command Queuing.
TCQ allows a drive to execute commands out of order to optimize the access pattern. This can have a HUGE impact on performance. Relatively few drives support TCQ on ATA, and very few chipsets support it as well. This is mostly because people who buy ATA aren't *real* performance freaks. They want high streaming performance (like hdparm -tT), but don't know to care about random access performance as it may not be relevant to them.
Server/database access patterns are far more random than typical desktop usage, and this is where SCSI wipes the floor with ATA.
Some have pointed out that RAID enclosures are moving towards IDE drives. This is due to the fact that the integrators are using optimizing logic in the controller to handle emulating TCQ. So you can have a stone-dumb drive in there and it doesn't matter as long as the physicals are there.
SCSI drives also typically come with caching algorithms which are intended to try to increase cache hits by using more intelligent cache allocation and predictive reading.
Combine that with better, more intelligent controllers, command detachment, and infinitely better bus sharing - and SCSI cannot be compared to ATA in high demand situations.
As this "article" painfully demonstrates, we need the ability to moderate things on the front page.
If the editors cannot distinguish what is trash or what isn't, let the community decide.
Thank you.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.