Need advice on Pulsar1 vs. SCSI controller..

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:06 pm

So, I have decided to get a SCSI controller and a SCSI-disk, but at the moment I have only one free PCI-slot, and that will be taken soon because of the PulsarII I have ordered (upgrade).
So I am wondering, would I be better off selling the Pulsar1, and getting a SCSI-controller+disk (the Pulsar would pay for it), or should I keep the Pulsar1 (together with a PulsarII and a Powersampler)?

OK, to simplify, what gives me better performance:

Option A: (Keep it and wait)
Keep Pulsar1 and wait several months to get SCSI.
I would have one PulsarII, a Powersampler, and a Pulsar1
Total of 13 DSP's and probably poorer PCI-performance because of the Pulsar1.

Option B: (sell it and buy SCSI)
Sell Pulsar1 and get a SCSI controller and a "small" 10K rpm SCSI disk for the money.
I would in this case have one PulsarII+Powersampler.
I would have a total of 9 DSP with better PCI-performance.

Whatever I choose, I will get a new mainboard asap, so I will be able to upgrade my CW-stuff later...

PS: My current system of 7 DSP actually suits my current needs, I rarely run into DSP overloads because I use mostly outboard gear.
I only use the STM 2448 mixer and effects/tools in the SFP enviroment.
So whatever I choose, I will have at least 2 more DSP's than I have now...

[ This Message was edited by: aMo on 2003-04-19 14:09 ]

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:40 pm

Alternatively: If anyone knows about a mainboard that has onboard SCSI-controller AND IDE (if that is possible)

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:07 pm

are your current hard drives not performing well enough?
I have adaptec 29160n adapter + 2 10k drives, they are great, but noisy!

Post by **garyb** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:52 am

as long as the pulsar2 is the first board,pulsar1's pci performance won't matter.(all pci transfers handled by the first board)

why do you need scsi?THAT's what'll eat pci.ide is more than fast enough......

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:18 am

Well, I've always figured SCSI-drives to be more stable and reliable (correct me if I'm wrong here), so I would want it to be a sort of "What-I'm-working-on-right-now"-disk..

I know that IDE drives have become very much faster over the years (I remember the old days with a 540mb size limit too hehe), but I havent been totally convinced of their reliability..
I have two 40gb IDE drives now (5400rpm & 7200 rpm Seagate's), and every now and then I have a crash, and every time, there are lot's of errors (I managed to save my SFP-project last time by renaming a FILE0000.chk file to .pro).
Not that my system crashes THAT often though (and it's usually the 5400rpm drive that suffers)..

But I dunno.. I think at least I will use Option A (keep it and wait), and see what happens...
At the rate things are developing, maybe IDE drives will be 10K+ and rock solid by the time I can afford a SCSI controller/drive..

[ This Message was edited by: aMo on 2003-04-20 04:18 ]

[ This Message was edited by: aMo on 2003-04-20 04:33 ]

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:27 am

And another thing:
My IDE controller is full (CD+DVD+2xHD's), so it's really annoying having to trade something away if I need another drive..
Thats not a SCSI problem

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:43 am

Hmm.. I just found a WD Raptor S-ATA drive that has SCSI specs..
36.7gb, 10K rpm, 5ms seek time, 8mb cache..
Maybe Serial ATA would be a better choice?

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:02 am

Yeah, i would think SATA is a better choice these days...

I was all scsi before, but now, my drives are IDE, but i keept the scsi controller for CD+CDRW+DVD, so i can have 4 drive (more than enough), + up to 14 other devices on scsi. I keep the scsi reliability for burning CD2CD and reading AKAI disks etc...

And since, when i'm recording i don't use cds, i keep my pci bandwidth intact.

Well, i guess i just have best of both world.
I have an adaptec 2940U2W + the ATA100 of my mobo.

Seriously, i think SCSI HD are overrated, personnaly, i would not go back to SCSI hd.

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:12 am

I would need another mobo soon anyway, and theese days there are several that comes with S-ATA onboard.. I think maybe that will be the way to go.. At least considering the feedback here..

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:44 pm

Yes, SCSI HD will eat pci performance, i have past experience of that. And DSP are never enough..nor inputs....

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:24 pm

aMo, I think you're right regarding disk reliability. The old SCSIs were much better, but then also significantly slower.
The best and still most affordable way would be to have the complete (IDE) working disks duplicated by whatever interface available.
300 bucks for 2 Barracuda V is a joke compared to the old SCSI prices

cheers, tom

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:24 am

So Seagate Barracuda's are good disks`?

If so I'm very happy, since my current "Audio"-disk is a Seagate Barracuda IV 7200rpm..

But, after having checked this out more and read your feedback here, I think I will get a mobo with both ATA/100/133 and S-ATA, so if I need a really fast disk, I can buy a S-ATA disk in the future..
(I will need a new mobo some day anyway, can't live with a MSI KM2M (VIA KM266 chipset) forever.. hehehe)

borg · Post by **borg** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:31 am

i had a built in SCSI before (bought the computer like this), now i have two seagate barracuda's... really nice.
with the SCSI, i've had sporadic PCI issues, with the IDE disks none, so far...

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:22 am

On 2003-04-20 04:18, aMo wrote:

I have two 40gb IDE drives now (5400rpm & 7200 rpm Seagate's), and every now and then I have a crash, and every time, there are lot's of errors (I managed to save my SFP-project last time by renaming a FILE0000.chk file to .pro).
Not that my system crashes THAT often though (and it's usually the 5400rpm drive that suffers)..
[ This Message was edited by: aMo on 2003-04-20 04:18 ]

[ This Message was edited by: aMo on 2003-04-20 04:33 ]

How do you know it's your hard drives causing the crashes? The only hard drive which will cause a crash is a faulty one (physically damaged), in which case the resolution would be to get a new hard drive, IDE or SCSI.

Are you sure your crashes aren't down to your motherboard or setup?

peace

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:34 am

I'm not saying my drives are the problem, I know what the problem is..

My computer crashes everytime I exit Sonar 2.2 AFTER I exit SFP 3.1c.. I don't know why, might be some unloading-a-driver-thats-already-unloaded issue..

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:11 am

One thing for sure, you should ALWAYS exit Sonar BEFORE SFP...

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:18 am

Hehe yeah.. So I've been told..

It's like removing the hardware while the software is still running..

But still.. Let's stick to th issue..hehe..
A computers harddrive is definitely the slowest part in it..
I'm looking into improving that..

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:28 pm

my long time experience with HDs is with SCSI drives in Apple systems for about 15 years.
In the very early time there were some funny errors with drives (the mechanic index for track zero got loose if the drive was positioned too fast

due to some extra clever writer of driver software) but after that everything was totally reliable.
With IDE drives I have occasional problems, some contact, some with controllers, some surface issues - with SCSI I had none.
The drives may die immediately that's why I think a complete copy is the way to go.
But since the drives are so cheap one can live with that 'feature' easily.

cheers, Tom