| Author |
Message |
Lordy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject:
15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
Hi,
My mate has a Compaq Evo W6000 Dual 2.2P Xeon (circa 2002) with an 18G
10Krpm SCSI drive.(U160) He wants to put an 18G 15Krpm U320 drive on it
for more "speed". (Dont ask - he likes to waste money).
Will there be any significant (ie perception!) gain doing this ?
He just does micky-mouse stuff on it most of the time. The most demanding
thing is probably backing up DVDs!
Also would a new 72G 10K outperform an older 18G 10K in general terms?
Cheers,
Lordy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:39 pm Post subject:
Re: 15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
"Lordy" <see.reply.to@lordyorguk.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2005.09.30.13.48.48.175116@lordyorguk.invalid...
| Quote: | Hi,
My mate has a Compaq Evo W6000 Dual 2.2P Xeon (circa 2002) with an 18G
10Krpm SCSI drive.(U160) He wants to put an 18G 15Krpm U320 drive on it
for more "speed". (Dont ask - he likes to waste money).
Will there be any significant (ie perception!) gain doing this ?
|
Depends on what you call significant.
In general an U320 drive (say upto 80MB/s seq.) will be faster than
an U160 drive (say upto 40MB/s seq). Obviously the 'upto' depends
on the drive generation within the interface groups, eg early U160 vs
late U320 will give a bigger difference than late U160 vs early U320.
On top of that 15k rpm is a little faster than a 10k rpm.
On top of that a 15k rpm has better access times than a 10k rpm.
That's 3 upgrades in one that may well be noticeable.
| Quote: | He just does micky-mouse stuff on it most of the time. The most demanding
thing is probably backing up DVDs!
Also would a new 72G 10K outperform an older 18G 10K in general terms?
|
Of course, unless it is the same model drive with a choice in interface where
only the bigger capacity and newer interface is the 'new' part in the equation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lordy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:25 am Post subject:
Re: 15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:39:02 +0200, Folkert Rienstra wrote:
| Quote: | Depends on what you call significant.
In general an U320 drive (say upto 80MB/s seq.) will be faster than
an U160 drive (say upto 40MB/s seq). Obviously the 'upto' depends
on the drive generation within the interface groups, eg early U160 vs
late U320 will give a bigger difference than late U160 vs early U320.
On top of that 15k rpm is a little faster than a 10k rpm.
On top of that a 15k rpm has better access times than a 10k rpm.
That's 3 upgrades in one that may well be noticeable.
|
Thanks. They'll be putting the U320 drive on a U160 interface BTW.
Lordy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:11 am Post subject:
Re: 15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
"Lordy" <see.reply.to@lordyorguk.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2005.09.30.20.25.34.424820@lordyorguk.invalid...
| Quote: | On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:39:02 +0200, Folkert Rienstra wrote:
Depends on what you call significant.
In general an U320 drive (say upto 80MB/s seq.) will be faster than
an U160 drive (say upto 40MB/s seq). Obviously the 'upto' depends
on the drive generation within the interface groups, eg early U160 vs
late U320 will give a bigger difference than late U160 vs early U320.
On top of that 15k rpm is a little faster than a 10k rpm.
On top of that a 15k rpm has better access times than a 10k rpm.
That's 3 upgrades in one that may well be noticeable.
Thanks.
They'll be putting the U320 drive on a U160 interface BTW.
|
Which obviously is not a problem.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dennis Gordon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:28 am Post subject:
Re: 15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
"Lordy" <see.reply.to@lordyorguk.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.30.20.25.34.424820@lordyorguk.invalid...
| Quote: | On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:39:02 +0200, Folkert Rienstra wrote:
Depends on what you call significant.
In general an U320 drive (say upto 80MB/s seq.) will be faster than
an U160 drive (say upto 40MB/s seq). Obviously the 'upto' depends
on the drive generation within the interface groups, eg early U160 vs
late U320 will give a bigger difference than late U160 vs early U320.
On top of that 15k rpm is a little faster than a 10k rpm.
On top of that a 15k rpm has better access times than a 10k rpm.
That's 3 upgrades in one that may well be noticeable.
Thanks. They'll be putting the U320 drive on a U160 interface BTW.
Lordy
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dennis Gordon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:36 am Post subject:
Re: 15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
I just put a new build together yesterday with 3 15K drives - an IBM 36G
u160; a Fujitsu 73G u320, and a Seagate 18G U320 (not hooked up yet... for
an XP64 install). All running off an old LSI Logic U160 adapter. I ran HD
Tach on the IBM and the Fujitsu today, and I was surprised how much faster
the Fujitsu benched. Random access for the Fujitsu was 5.5ms vs. 6.7 for the
IBM. Read burst was 80+ vs 74 and the sequential speed was 73K/sec vs
48K/sec for the IBM. It could just be that the Fujitsu is just a better
drive. I'll have to bench the Seagate to see if it too is faster than the
IBM....
"Lordy" <see.reply.to@lordyorguk.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.30.20.25.34.424820@lordyorguk.invalid...
| Quote: | On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:39:02 +0200, Folkert Rienstra wrote:
Depends on what you call significant.
In general an U320 drive (say upto 80MB/s seq.) will be faster than
an U160 drive (say upto 40MB/s seq). Obviously the 'upto' depends
on the drive generation within the interface groups, eg early U160 vs
late U320 will give a bigger difference than late U160 vs early U320.
On top of that 15k rpm is a little faster than a 10k rpm.
On top of that a 15k rpm has better access times than a 10k rpm.
That's 3 upgrades in one that may well be noticeable.
Thanks. They'll be putting the U320 drive on a U160 interface BTW.
Lordy
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lordy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: 15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:11:49 +0200, Folkert Rienstra wrote:
| Quote: |
They'll be putting the U320 drive on a U160 interface BTW.
Which obviously is not a problem.
|
I know they are back-compat I just wondered how much it may throttle
potential performance of the drive?
I think I may have sold him on getting a WD Raptor now because in all
honesty, he doesnt really do much on his PC, and this may be a sensible
choice to have for any future 'home' upgrades without the added expense of
needing a SCSI controller? But the Cheetah specs do look nice :)
Lordy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Folkert Rienstra
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:08 pm Post subject:
Re: 15K worth putting on a U160 interface? |
|
|
"Lordy" <see.reply.to@lordyorguk.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2005.10.01.03.08.29.623605@lordyorguk.invalid...
| Quote: | On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:11:49 +0200, Folkert Rienstra wrote:
They'll be putting the U320 drive on a U160 interface BTW.
Which obviously is not a problem.
I know they are back-compat I just wondered how much it may throttle
potential performance of the drive?
|
If you read the thread again you'll find that the answer is in the numbers
that I supplied.
| Quote: |
I think I may have sold him on getting a WD Raptor now because in all
honesty, he doesnt really do much on his PC, and this may be a sensible
choice to have for any future 'home' upgrades without the added expense of
needing a SCSI controller? But the Cheetah specs do look nice :)
Lordy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in