Why use SCSI? *Modified*

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Why use SCSI? Modified.

People often asks questions why they should even consider the use of SCSI in their machine.

This little article about Building your Perfect Linux box explains why to use SCSI.

The case for…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/2641-Why-use-SCSI--Modified.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/2641-Why-use-SCSI--Modified.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

nothing but scsi for me


#3

Um … at least I won`t buy a non-SCSI burner. ViRuZ


#4

The 3 brands of PCI SCSI cards I have dealt with had DMA “built-in”. I have used SCSI for years in my main systems. Notice the difference ASAP! I can even back up one of my SCSI HDD’s to my intenal net’ while burning CD’s (12x with HDD source), cruising internet, AND listening to MP3’s. Havent made coaster with my Yammy since I tried the newest firmware (it messed up my drive-had to down grade firmware).


#5

SCSI Only - Command Tag Queuing. SCSI Only - Device Disconnects. SCSI only - 7-15 devices. SCSI is expensive, but the above technology is what u pay for.


#6

Yes, I agree that SCSI is way better. But you’re missing the point, some of us don’t need them. It’s like saying whether to get a Ferrari or a Golf - it depends on what you need and the budget you’re willing to spend. For me I’m happy with IDE, because I frequently upgrade my HDs and believe me SCSI option is way too expensive for upgrades!! Don’t take this the wrong way, but do you guys spend hours and hours on the PC? That you can’t wait for a complete CD burn to do your house chores - or even to cook? :wink:


#7

TH7, i think you have missed the main reason why scsi is better. First, you are able to use many progs at one time without beeing fucked up by low perfomance. Next main reason is the perfomance. Do you have tried to use a udma 100 controller on old pentium 100? Compare it to U160 Scsi controller. You wont reach the full speed of udma 100. Maybe udma 33, because the perfomance of ide drive depends mainly on your cpu. SCSI is the better choice for lower system and for hardcore multimedia users like me, g. I’m doing much music stuff, video encoding etc. and there is no better solution then scsi. Im pretty sad that plextor no longer makes scsi recorders, but there are nice ide2u160 adapters, not very cheap, but a great choice. cya. If you are a gamer and surf a bit, then i understand that you wont spend the money for scsi, but if you use many proggys or want to throw your money out of the window then you should use scsi. cya


#8

TH7. I know what you mean if you store a large amount of stuff (mp3s, warez, films etc.) on your hard drive. SCSI is an expensive choice. That’s why I want to get a few LARGE IDE drives for storage but then SCSI is definitely the choice for hard drive if you can afford it to put your OS and programs onto. I know it’s expensive but at the VERY least use it for your burner like I do.


#9

yes, you`re absolutely right, all the advantages of scsi make it worth the extra money. Only scsi(burners/cdrom drives) for me :wink:


#10

scuzzy is a better interface, well at least for this performance maniac. The cost is prohibitive for most though. IDE drives are dumb and scsi are smart drives is how I look at it. I must praise Yamaha for supporting the needs of advanced users and admonish plextor for burning (pun intended) the people that gave them their market share to start with by not keeping up with scuzzy units.


#11

isn’t firewire(apple TM) PC verison iEE 4.0 something or something like that faster and cheaper


#12

Firewire (IEEE 1394)… It supports 400mb/s… And no, we don’t have cheap firwire hard disk drives yet…


#13

I don’t see too much to worry about in price for SCSI. You can get a SCSI-2 card for under $50 (usually half that) which is all that a burner needs. SCSI drives are about $50 more as well. Now consider that you would have to buy a 24x IDE burner to make up for the 16x SCSI burner and you have almost payed for it already. Not to mention, you don’t have to treat your computer like a baby while burning a CD. I know that everyone with an IDE burner has at one time or another wished that they could do some multitasking with their computer without worrying about messing up a copy. The extra peace of mind and quality of product are definately worth it. As an added bonus, for those of us that use IDE for storage drives, there is still an extra port avaliable.


#14

One correction to the above: command queueing and command overlap are part of the ATA/ATAPI 4 specification. However, not all devices implement it, and if one device on the channel doesn’t support command overlap then it doesn’t matter much if the other one does. If you’re building a system with one large hard drive by itself on the primary channel, you can get as good (in some cases, better) performance out of a UDMA/66 drive. The benefits of SCSI aren’t realized until you have a handful of devices all blabbering at once. That said, I have three computers at home, and there isn’t an IDE device anywhere to be found. This might not hold for the next one though, now that the interfaces are getting so much faster.


#15

have any of you ever try’d to copy 2 entire music cds from 2 drives on the same IDE channel before? ARRRG! it’ll take so fricken long becuase IDE sucks! the next system i build will have a nice 8x100GB scsi raid 0+1, a scsi cdrom, cdrw and dvdr drive. i think i’m starting to drewl. it should also have 8 way SMP, yeah you know what i’m talking about. AMD Sledgehammer. all i need is $10,000.