Windows and SCSI don't mix.

[Dan M]

So... I guess one of my disks is failing. It's in a 3-disk RAID-0. Windows claims that it can see all the files, but when I try to copy them it says "cannot copy file, disk is write-protected." Theres nothing wrong with the destination disk. Ideas??

[BirdOfPrey01]

its locked, i dont know, umm, ask on a computer hardware forum hehe [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Dojo2000]

I never did get the attraction of SCSI. It seems like you need a whole nother set of scsi drives to back up all your stuff because a failure is catastrophic.

[Dan M]

A SCSI drive failing is usually not as bad as an IDE drive failin... if you use the right type of RAID (not RAID-0, unfortunately for me) you can simply replace the dead disk and rebuild the array without losing any data.

[Camarorulz]

See a PC counselor.....


;)

[3.4 slow to go]

ask Drew, he lovessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss SCSI

[Infernal]

Originally posted by Dojo2000:
I never did get the attraction of SCSI. It seems like you need a whole nother set of scsi drives to back up all your stuff because a failure is catastrophic.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

SCSI drives are more expensive, and are often built with superior components because they are meant to be used in a server environment where they will be active constantly, and they usually spin up much faster than IDE drives. 7,200 RPM vs 10,000 - 12,000 RPM.

A SCSI setup will transfer data in parallel much more efficiently than IDE. A good SCSI setup will offer much more data bandwidth between the bus and the drive than an IDE setup. SCSI drives usually have more on-board cache, and the SCSI interface usually has it's own cache. This makes the drive faster.

If anything, a SCSI drive would be more reliable.

[Dojo2000]

Originally posted by Infernal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dojo2000:
I never did get the attraction of SCSI. It seems like you need a whole nother set of scsi drives to back up all your stuff because a failure is catastrophic.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

SCSI drives are more expensive, and are often built with superior components because they are meant to be used in a server environment where they will be active constantly, and they usually spin up much faster than IDE drives. 7,200 RPM vs 10,000 - 12,000 RPM.

A SCSI setup will transfer data in parallel much more efficiently than IDE. A good SCSI setup will offer much more data bandwidth between the bus and the drive than an IDE setup. SCSI drives usually have more on-board cache, and the SCSI interface usually has it's own cache. This makes the drive faster.

If anything, a SCSI drive would be more reliable. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I was speaking of using SCSI in non-commercial/non-industry type settings, for example, on their home PC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there a few 10,000RPM EIDE drives?

[TealV6]

"bob... I'm going to have to go with Infernal on this one..... we'll take door number 1"

You boob... what were you thinking?? Raid 0.... You do know what that is for right??? if not... refresher here http://www.acnc.com/raid.html

Now... your answer....


You ready....


You sure your ready????


S

O

L


Sorry, but thank you for playing "Your Data just screwed the pooch!" :D

NOTE: if you don't get my humor... please refer to my manual [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Infernal]

Originally posted by Dojo2000:
Sorry, I was speaking of using SCSI in non-commercial/non-industry type settings, for example, on their home PC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there a few 10,000RPM EIDE drives?

Oh, definitely. I still don't see why SCSI would be less reliable, but I personally wouldn't use SCSI drives in a workstation or home PC unless I was doing serious disk IO like the kind that comes along with video editing.

[Dan M]

It's strange - aside from windows puking on it, my controller says it's failed... but another drive the makes strange noises and still occasionally runs is still "optimal."

Bleh!

[majeskyb]

I don't see why people are ragging on SCSI. I'm running a dual channel Ultra2 scsi card, connected to my system disk on my mac. this was a BTO option in 99, and has a transfer rate of 160Mbps. The newest scsi standard has a transfer rate of 320Mbps. Also, you can get 15k rpm drives for scsi, with 16MB buffers, and last a lot longer than an ide drive will ever hope to last. And, I found a 180GB scsi drive, with a 16mb buffer for $130. That, to me, is a great price for the knowledge that the drive is under warentee for more than a year, and will be reliable a lot longer than an ide drive will be

[TealV6]

Give me SATA drives all day long..... 150Mbps, large buffers, CHEAP! Thus why RAID is Redundant Array of Independent Disks.

SCSI was good in it's day... but SCSI "voodoo" was a pain!!! I know.. I remember those days... god how I loved it when FW came main stream!

[Dan M]

Bleh. Windows is stupid. I can't copy any of the "recovered" files to another disk, but I can play the mp3s and view the pictures. Pretty cool huh.

[TealV6]

Originally posted by Dan M:
Windows is stupid.

I didn't say it :D