| hdrdtd 2006-09-24, 7:00 pm |
| I agree that SCSI drives can be quite a bit 'faster', but they do cost more
than your typical ATA or SATA drives, plus you have to factor in the cost of
a good SCSI controller.
At work, we do physical testing of automobiles and automobile parts, and we
take extensive digital photos of the parts as they are being tested.
for some time now, the main PC we use for Digital photo procesing was a
custome PC built using dual P3 550Mhz CPU's 1gig of ram, and several SCSI
HD's running mainly Adobe Photoshop 6.0 and processing 16meg TIF files.
We decided it was time to build a newer PC, and to that end we built a PC
using a single 3.2Ghz P4, 2gig of ram, a 36gig raptor to boot to and a
320gig WD drive for storage.
Outr photographer tried the new system for a couple of weeks, then proceeded
to revert back to the older system with dual 550Mhz CPU's and the SCSI
drives.
"Mike Walsh" <spamscks@netrox.net> wrote in message
news:4514227E.A7D7DC68@netrox.net...
>
> SCSI drives have very good performance. When I bought two 160 GB 7200 RPM
> IDE drives for my home PC I had planned to retire my old SCSI drives but
> decided to keep my 10,000 RPM 9 GB drive for page file and temp files when
> I found that the random access read rate (reading 64 KB data blocks) is
> 20% faster than the IDE drives.
> The fastest drives available are 15,000 RPM SCSI drives in RAID 1, but
> higher density IDE drives have excellent sequential read rates (good for
> reading very large files). You can get good performance without RAID if
> you use separate drives for OS, data, page file, and depending on the
> application, temp files.
>
> ship wrote:
>
> --
> Mike Walsh
> West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
|