Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Hardware Question IDE vs. SCSI

18 REPLIES 18
Back to Inventor Category
Back to Topic Listing
Reply
Message 1 of 19
bsmith75
582 Views, 18 Replies
‎02-28-2003 02:11 AM
‎02-28-2003 02:11 AM

Hardware Question IDE vs. SCSI

I putting together a Req for new workstations and was wondering how much "bang for my buck" I would get by using SCSI over IDE hard drives, when using Inventor 6. My VAR stressed useing SCSI hard drives, just wondering how much of a differance I will see
Report
0 Likes
Reply
18 REPLIES 18
Message 2 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 02:13 AM
‎02-28-2003 02:13 AM

Running off a network?
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 3 of 19
bsmith75
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 02:21 AM
‎02-28-2003 02:21 AM

yep
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 4 of 19
rllthomas
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 02:26 AM
‎02-28-2003 02:26 AM

SCSI does make a difference, but bang for the buck is video, processor and lots of fast RAM. Once all those are maximized SCSI is the next place to go for performance. It doesn't matter if your files are local or on the network because SCSI helps the OS and programs access information along with speeding up your swapfile access.
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 5 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 02:29 AM
‎02-28-2003 02:29 AM

IMHO, with the speed and price of todays 7500Rpm
IDE drives running off a RAID card, I would find it hard to justify the
cost a a SCSI setup. 
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 6 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 02:51 AM
‎02-28-2003 02:51 AM

Hi Bsmith,

 

I came across a review of SCSI vs IDE and here is
the conclusion:

 

"The results of the today's comparison are rather
instructive.

First, we have learned that IDE RAID arrays can compete on equal terms with
single SCSI drives in a number of applications.

Second, we saw that different disk subsystems proved better in different
tasks: SCSI drives are best working under their native server workloads while
IDE drives in RAID0 arrays do sequential read and write very well.

Third, we discovered a coefficient between SCSI and IDE drives: one Cheetah
X15 36LP equals at least four Maxtor 6L020J1 :).

It's clear that every interface has its own advantages and shortcomings. SCSI
means reliability and high performance, but also high price. Moreover, it needs
a costly controller. IDE means huge capacities and much lower storage cost for
1MB than in SCSI HDDs. But IDE drives are much less reliable and to build a
fault-tolerant disk subsystem you need to combine them into mirror RAID arrays
(and this requires at least one more drive and a RAID-controller)."


For your setup, since you are accessing your files via a network, SCSI would
not offer any additional (or noticable) performance. Your swapfile would be
faster, but if you are using it for your work, the problem is not Hard disk
speed but not enough RAM. The major advantage that SCSI has is increased
reliablity and 5 year warranty, vs IDE has one year warranty (on most) and low
reliability. So what do people do? Most my customers choose to go for a $100
RAID card and two IDE HDDs for RAID 1, and buy 2 Gigs of RAM!


--
----------
Ashley Fulks
Production Manager @
href="http://www.nisku.ca">www.nisku.ca
Specialized Supercomputers for
Inventor

href="http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp.htm">http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp.htm

href="http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp/autocompII.html">http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp/autocompII.html


 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
putting together a Req for new workstations and was wondering how much "bang
for my buck" I would get by using SCSI over IDE hard drives, when using
Inventor 6. My VAR stressed useing SCSI hard drives, just wondering how much
of a differance I will see
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 7 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 03:07 AM
‎02-28-2003 03:07 AM

dont forget that scsi has almost no cpu usage
compared to ide which makes the whole system seem to run smoother because your
cpu is free for running the program, not the drives.

 

Matt
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 8 of 19
rllthomas
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 03:13 AM
‎02-28-2003 03:13 AM

It is noticable too, I would actually prefer a SCSI over a second CPU. Before the bashing begins let me say that yes, I have run my computer with 2 CPUs, I took the second one out. Yes, I ran it w/o SCSI, they system was much more responsive with SCSI.

Rich Thomas
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 9 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 03:25 AM
‎02-28-2003 03:25 AM

why not just scsi and duals 🙂

 

wait, dual scsi's in raid 0 with duals would be the
best. ok now i know thats too much 🙂
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 10 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 04:18 AM
‎02-28-2003 04:18 AM

Well if money's no object, i would go SCSI fiber
channel with Fiber channel card. You can get 2 Gigabits per second hard drive
transfer speed! * drool *

 

and of course Dual 3.06 Ghz Xeons with
Hyperthreading and 4 Gigs RAMBUS 1066, 1 gig network card, 52 inch plasma
screen...



style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

why not just scsi and duals 🙂

 

wait, dual scsi's in raid 0 with duals would be
the best. ok now i know thats too much
:)
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 11 of 19
MechMan_
Advocate
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 04:35 AM
‎02-28-2003 04:35 AM

STOP IT! I'm drooling all over my keyboard. B-)

MechMan
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 12 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 04:49 AM
‎02-28-2003 04:49 AM

i suggest one of those nifty plastic keyboard
covers MechMan  🙂

 

Matt
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 13 of 19
MechMan_
Advocate
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 04:49 AM
‎02-28-2003 04:49 AM

LOL, maybe you're right Matt considering all the talk about some of the awesome workstations I've read some of the users here are configuring.

MechMan
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 14 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 05:28 AM
‎02-28-2003 05:28 AM

Do you really need hyperthreading if you have a
dually? I thought hyperthreading simulated dual processors with 1
CPU.

 

just curious,

kp

 

"Curiosity killed the cat & satisfaction
brought him back" 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Well if money's no object, i would go SCSI fiber
channel with Fiber channel card. You can get 2 Gigabits per second hard drive
transfer speed! * drool *

 

and of course Dual 3.06 Ghz Xeons with
Hyperthreading and 4 Gigs RAMBUS 1066, 1 gig network card, 52 inch plasma
screen...



style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

why not just scsi and duals 🙂

 

wait, dual scsi's in raid 0 with duals would be
the best. ok now i know thats too much
:)
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 15 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 05:56 AM
‎02-28-2003 05:56 AM

it would show 4 cpu's

 

Matt
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 16 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎02-28-2003 06:02 AM
‎02-28-2003 06:02 AM

You don't "need" it.

 

But i want it! <g>



style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Do you really need hyperthreading if you have a
dually? I thought hyperthreading simulated dual processors with 1
CPU.

 

just curious,

kp

 

"Curiosity killed the cat & satisfaction
brought him back" 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Well if money's no object, i would go SCSI
fiber channel with Fiber channel card. You can get 2 Gigabits per second
hard drive transfer speed! * drool *

 

and of course Dual 3.06 Ghz Xeons with
Hyperthreading and 4 Gigs RAMBUS 1066, 1 gig network card, 52 inch plasma
screen...



style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

why not just scsi and duals 🙂

 

wait, dual scsi's in raid 0 with duals would
be the best. ok now i know thats too much
🙂
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 17 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎03-02-2003 04:23 AM
‎03-02-2003 04:23 AM

Just to add my 2 cents

 

Last year I benchmarked 2 computers.

 

1) Clone - AMD 1.8 single processor, 1 gig DDR
(266) ram, 7200 rpm IDE hard drive.  Geforce 3  64 meg graphic
card.

 

2) Xeon - dual 1.7 with 1 gig pc800 ram, SCSI hard
drive, Wildcat 5110 128 meg graphic card.

 

Testing was done with Inventor 5.3 and PacWest demo
set from Autodesk.  It takes approx 600 megs of ram to load the full
assembly.  I tested loading time of the assembly, Precise view generations
of the assembly in IDW and Zoom and rotate speeds of the full
assembly.

 


size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Loading time - 20 seconds for
AMD       ----  23 seconds for Xeon 

 

Although the SCSI hard drive was faster - loading
the assembly into memory took more time with the PC800 memory than the DDR on
the AMD

 


size=2>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Zoom rotate - Xeon was approx 30% faster than the
AMD

 

Advantage to Wildcat over the Geforce 3, but for
the price difference I want more bang for my buck.

 


size=2>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Precise view generation -   5 min 47
seconds for AMD    -----   8 min 12 sec 
Xeon    

 

Xeon should have the clear advantage with the
dual processor over the single processor AMD, but this number crunching
test just showed AMD clear advantage.

 


size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Final test was again number crunching - 1800 frame
rendering in 3D Studio Viz - 1 hour 12 minutes AMD ,  1 hour 45
minutes for the Xeon.

 

Stan McLean 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
putting together a Req for new workstations and was wondering how much "bang
for my buck" I would get by using SCSI over IDE hard drives, when using
Inventor 6. My VAR stressed useing SCSI hard drives, just wondering how much
of a differance I will see
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 18 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎03-02-2003 08:51 AM
‎03-02-2003 08:51 AM

do you know if this benchmark can still be
downlaoded?

 

thanks

 

Matt


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Just to add my 2 cents

 

Last year I benchmarked 2 computers.

 

1) Clone - AMD 1.8 single processor, 1 gig DDR
(266) ram, 7200 rpm IDE hard drive.  Geforce 3  64 meg graphic
card.

 

2) Xeon - dual 1.7 with 1 gig pc800 ram, SCSI
hard drive, Wildcat 5110 128 meg graphic card.

 

Testing was done with Inventor 5.3 and PacWest
demo set from Autodesk.  It takes approx 600 megs of ram to load the full
assembly.  I tested loading time of the assembly, Precise view
generations of the assembly in IDW and Zoom and rotate speeds of the full
assembly.

 


size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Loading time - 20 seconds for
AMD       ----  23 seconds for Xeon 

 

Although the SCSI hard drive was faster - loading
the assembly into memory took more time with the PC800 memory than the DDR on
the AMD

 


size=2>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Zoom rotate - Xeon was approx 30% faster than the
AMD

 

Advantage to Wildcat over the Geforce 3, but for
the price difference I want more bang for my buck.

 


size=2>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Precise view generation -   5 min 47
seconds for AMD    -----   8 min 12 sec 
Xeon    

 

Xeon should have the clear advantage with
the dual processor over the single processor AMD, but this number crunching
test just showed AMD clear advantage.

 


size=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Final test was again number crunching - 1800
frame rendering in 3D Studio Viz - 1 hour 12 minutes AMD ,  1
hour 45 minutes for the Xeon.

 

Stan McLean 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
putting together a Req for new workstations and was wondering how much "bang
for my buck" I would get by using SCSI over IDE hard drives, when using
Inventor 6. My VAR stressed useing SCSI hard drives, just wondering how much
of a differance I will see
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 19 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: bsmith75
‎03-02-2003 09:42 AM
‎03-02-2003 09:42 AM

Matt,
 
This was not a true benchmark.  The PacWest
Demo was Autodesk provide material for Inventor 5 which is no longer
available.  But at the time it was the largest assembly I had.
 
Timing was done with a stopwatch except for the
graphic card, which the Post statistics switch was turned on in the registry to
show graphic speed in Inventor. 
 
Stan Mclean
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Reply

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

Report a website issue