Windows IT Pro is the authoritative and independent resource for windows nt, windows 2000, windows 2003, windows xp. Features a collection of resources and magazines for windows IT professionals.
  
  
  Advanced Search 


June 1997

SCSI and IDE:Defining the Differences


RSS
Subscribe to Windows IT Pro | See More Storage Articles Here | Reprints | Or get the Monthly Online Pass—only $5.95 a month!
SideBar    A Little IDE Math, Data Transfer Methods, SCSI Termination

One of the most important decisions you must make when you configure a Windows NT system is which mass storage subsystem to use. Even if you've spent only a short time in the NT universe, you've likely heard time and time again that Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) is the best choice for NT computers. However, enhanced versions of the Integrated Drive Electronics (IDE) specification such as EIDE/ATA-2, ATA-3, and Ultra ATA tout new and improved features that claim to give SCSI a run for its money. In addition, you can purchase these newer, faster IDE-based drives for significantly less money than comparable SCSI drives. Meanwhile at the high end, countless new SCSI specifications have arrived on the scene, promising better performance and features than previous incarnations of SCSI. To help you separate facts from marketing hype, let's explore the various flavors of both technologies and compare their features and shortcomings.

NT and SCSI: A Marriage Made in Redmond
Since the inception of NT, Microsoft has strongly urged system designers and end users to choose SCSI for their NT systems to maximize performance. This recommendation appears throughout the NT documentation and white papers, as well as in computer industry publications. Perhaps the best place to start comparing SCSI and IDE is to examine the reasons behind this recommendation and find out why people feel so strongly about using SCSI with NT.

Origins of SCSI
The SCSI interface, which debuted in the early 1980s, was designed to be a universal, multipurpose I/O bus for personal computers. As you might remember, older PC hardware arrangements used a separate controller for almost every kind of device, so a system might have a number of different controller cards: one for the hard disk, one for a tape drive, one for a scanner, and so forth. These other technologies typically defined specifications involving one or more dumb peripherals attached to a controller to handle all the I/O operations. SCSI, in contrast, introduced a specification that called for intelligent controllers and peripherals, and let one controller card control up to seven daisy-chained devices.

The first implementation of SCSI, dubbed SCSI-1, was an unofficial, de facto adoption of SCSI by various vendors in the mid-1980s. SCSI-1 offered an 8-bit wide data path and a 5MHz bus clock rate, yielding asynchronous transfer rates of up to 1.5MBps and synchronous transfer rates of up to 5MBps. (Asynchronous transmission requires a handshake, or signal, between the sending and receiving computers for each byte transferred; synchronous transmission transfers a series of bytes before handshaking occurs, which increases the data transfer rate.) Among SCSI-1's benefits was the ability to process multiple, overlapped commands simultaneously. SCSI-1 drives could overlap I/O operations with other SCSI-1 drives in the system, processing data in a concurrent, parallel (rather than serial) fashion. Unfortunately, numerous incompatibility problems plagued SCSI-1 products because vendor implementations of the specification differed significantly.

SCSI and More SCSI
As a result of SCSI-1's incompatibility problems, the ANSI-approved SCSI-2 standard emerged to provide a unified SCSI implementation and assure interoperability between SCSI hardware from different vendors. This new flavor of SCSI offered a faster 10MHz bus clock yielding a maximum synchronous data transfer rate of 10MBps. Devices complying with the faster transfer rate were labeled Fast SCSI-2. The specification included a 16-bit wide version of SCSI (dubbed Fast/Wide SCSI-2) that doubled bus throughput to 20MBps and increased the maximum number of devices on the SCSI bus from 7 to 15. Other enhancements included features such as parity checking and an improved connector specification.

The continued popularity and success of the SCSI-2 standard begat the SCSI-3 standard, which includes several related SCSI specifications, including the parallel Ultra SCSI standard (8-bit data path at a 20MBps transfer rate) and the Ultra Wide SCSI standard (16-bit data path at a 40MBps transfer rate). Luckily, the Ultra SCSI and Ultra Wide SCSI implementations use the same connector types as SCSI-2 (Fast and Fast/Wide) and are fully backward-compatible with SCSI-2 controllers. Table 1 summarizes the data path widths, data transfer rates, and recommended cable lengths for the various SCSI implementations.

Power, SCSI-Style
Without a doubt, the most important feature of SCSI is its ability to perform overlapped, multitasked I/O. NT's asynchronous I/O model, which lets NT conduct multiple I/O operations concurrently with multiple devices, enhances SCSI's multitasking capabilities.

SCSI also provides a relatively low CPU utilization compared with other disk controller standards, such as IDE. Most IDE disk subsystems use a Programmed I/O (PIO) method of data transfer that requires the system CPU to handle all I/O on behalf of the drive interface. In contrast, SCSI uses Bus Mastering direct memory access (DMA) to transfer data to system memory. Bus Mastering DMA uses DMA controller logic built onto the SCSI host adapter (rather than the system DMA controller) to control the bus and transfer data directly to system memory, bypassing the system CPU entirely. For more information about the different data transfer methods that disk controllers use, see the sidebar, "Data Transfer Methods."

SCSI also includes features that help improve performance. For example, to improve the efficiency of bus utilization, SCSI provides features such as tagged command queuing (which lets the SCSI host adapter handle queued commands in the most efficient order, rather than in the order the host adapter receives them), scatter/gather (which provides multiple host addresses for data transfer in one command packet), and disconnect/reconnect (which lets SCSI devices disconnect from the bus when they aren't using it and reconnect when they need to transfer data).

SCSI Pitfalls
As the old saying goes, every rose has its thorn. Although SCSI-2 and SCSI-3 are high-performance, robust standards, implementing them can be difficult. In addition to cable termination and SCSI ID problems, mixing slow and fast devices on a bus can cause timeout and reset errors. With reasonable planning, you can easily avoid these problems. (For more information about SCSI termination, see the sidebar, "SCSI Termination," on the Windows NT Magazine Web site--http://www.winntmag.com. For tips about troubleshooting SCSI problems, see Bob Chronister's Tricks & Traps columns, or post your questions on the Windows NT Magazine forums--http://www.winntmag.com/forums.)

   Previous  [1]  2  Next 


Reader Comments
In Sean Daily’s June 1997 article, “SCSI and IDE: Defining the Differences,” I read that NT 4.0 (and earlier) provides only PIO Mode 2 speed (8.3MBps) for Enhanced IDE (EIDE) drives. Does Microsoft plan to provide PIO Mode 4 support for NT 5.0? With all the laptops running NT for development, you would think that getting support at the driver level for PIO Mode 4 (or better) would be a priority.<br>
--Gerry High<br><br>

<i>I have not heard anything from Microsoft regarding expanded PIO or direct memory access (DMA) ATA support in NT 5.0. I wouldn’t be surprised if this support remains status quo with NT 5.0. First, Microsoft has traditionally focused on SCSI for NT and de-emphasizes IDE support over expanded SCSI driver availability. Second, several third-party drivers (from IDE chipset and controller card vendors) provide support, making it less critical that Microsoft provide enhanced drivers.<br>
--Sean Daily</i>

Gerry High August 10, 1999


As painful as it is to admit (for reasons I’ll describe later), Sean Daily’s June article, “SCSI and IDE: Defining the Differences,” June 1997, is the best article I’ve read to date. I’ve used NT since version 3.5 (hardly a veteran, but I’m scarred nonetheless), and I remember the pains I went through deciding what hardware to put into a machine. Windows 95 was not available yet, I needed a 32-bit OS (instead of WIN32S), and SCSI drives and controllers were pricey. All the articles I read said EIDE at PIO4 was comparable to Fast SCSI if you didn’t need the multitasked IO. I didn’t, so I went with EIDE drives.
So now you tell me I can get only PIO2 speed on NT 4.0? Well that’s frustrating, isn’t it? 8.3Mbps max? (This fact might explain why all the benchmarks rate my uncached disk scores disgustingly low, even with an Ultra EIDE drive on an Ultra-supporting motherboard.) Why PIO2? Is there any intent to update this specification? Is it the ATDISK driver? Do you know of any workaround? I have a TEKRAM controller, which I’ve since yanked in favor of the EIDE on the motherboard. Am I doomed? Sorry for the barrage of questions. But hey, when you write such an informative article, these things happen. Good work, Sean.<br>
--Nigel Vickers<br><br>

<i>Your story is a familiar and an unfortunate one—users with dashed hopes about the performance of their latest-and-greatest EIDE/UltraATA drivers who have found out that the real-world performance under NT is just...well, not there. The problem is not that NT cannot technically support higher PIO and DMA modes, because it certainly can. But Microsoft (and even the drive and IDE chipset vendors) hasn’t made the development effort to provide the drivers. Microsoft’s mantra has always been that SCSI is the way to go for NT. This intent is reflected in the practical ignorance in driver support for the latest IDE technology that’s out there. I don’t expect this support from Microsoft any time soon, either; if this support is to come, the IDE chipset manufacturers (e.g., Intel, CMD) will have to provide it. However, my opinion stands firm that SCSI is always the best bet for an NT system. After all, most people buy NT for higher performance and an enhanced feature set. You don’t want to cripple these abilities with devices that artificially limit NT’s potential.<br>
--Sean Daily</i>

Nigel Vickers August 13, 1999


I enjoyed Sean Daily’s June article about SCSI and IDE. I was surprised to learn that NT supports only Mode 2 in IDE drives. Do you know whether the piixide driver from Intel supports modes higher than 2?<br>
--Will Corley<br><br>

<i>I don’t have any details on that driver, but a quick search of Intel’s site yielded some interesting information about its newest busmaster IDE drivers. For systems capable of using them, these drivers will use up to DMA Mode 2 (compared with the default PIO Mode 2 that NT’s default driver uses). This ability should yield faster transfer rates and lower CPU utilizations. For more information, check http://developer.intel.com/design/pcisets/busmastr. Be sure to check out the FAQ section, which describes the enhanced driver’s capabilities.<br>
--Sean Daily</i>

Will Corley August 13, 1999


I just finished reading Sean Daily’s June article, “SCSI and IDE: Defining the Differences,” and wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed it. Notably, the informative table about the different transfer rates was great. As a diehard SCSI fan, I can appreciate the technical value of such a chat. Thanks for the wonderfully written article.<br>
--Oscar Miranda

Oscar Miranda August 13, 1999


Sean Daily’s June article, “SCSI and IDE: Defining the Differences,” was excellent. My company has different NT configurations at our customer sites. Some have workgroups, and some have domains. We have a peripheral device, a puncher/reader, that can be hooked only to a COM port (COM1 or COM2). The puncher/reader is hooked to a COM port on an NT workstation or server, and we want users to be able to access this COM port from other NT workstations. How can I allow peer-to-peer sharing of COM ports between NT LAN workstations (asynchronous port sharing) so that NT workstations on the LAN can share peripherals attached to a COM port?<br>
--James Owusu <br><br>

<i>You can accomplish this connection with a program such as SpartaCom Asynchronous Port Sharing (SAPS) from TSP Companies (http://www.tspco.com). It lets Windows 3.x, Win95, and Windows NT clients on a network share one or more serial devices on an NT server. Other products that offer similar functionality include RASport and WINport from LANSource Technologies (http://www.lansource.com).<br>
--Sean Daily</i>

James Owusu August 13, 1999


Excellent Article , seems up to date. I had a HPVectra 90 upgraded to a 200mhz w/ a bootable scsi drive and app data drives. This system ran circles around 350/400 mhz systems running IDE. I am going to Athlon 500 on FIC board . Unfortunatly I am unable to boot the sys, so I may got to an Ultra DMA for the boot and scsi for the others.
Wht do you think?

John Costa March 22, 2000


<br>I found Sean Daily's "SCSI and IDE: Defining the Differences" (June 1997) very informative. Are the facts the same with Windows 2000 and the latest ATA/IDE drives? We were thinking about using IDE drives instead of SCSI in our CAD workstations. I would rather not because I feel IDE slows down the systems, even if the processors are fast and you have a lot of memory installed. ATA/IDE seems to be a dying specification. Every IDE device emulates a SCSI device, and Windows lists IDE devices as SCSI devices. The price difference is minimal, especially when you consider performance. Also, Windows XP will be here soon, so the home market gets an OS that can benefit from SCSI for tasks such as video editing and realtime CD burning. I'd appreciate your insight on the future of IDE.<br>

Chip Atkins June 05, 2001


<br><i>IDE has come a long way since I wrote that article. Built-in driver support in Win2K and the latest Windows NT service packs are quite good for the fastest Programmed I/O (PIO) and direct memory access (DMA) modes, and third-party drivers often take full advantage of the particular controller or drive capabilities. However, SCSI remains the best choice for servers and high-end workstations because of its performance edge--especially in situations in which I/O requests come from different applications or users simultaneously (e.g., on a server
or a heavily multitasking workstation). Basically, manufacturers target IDE to the home, small office/home office (SOHO), and generic business desktop PC markets; SCSI is targeted to the power-user, high-end workstation, and server markets.<br>
I don't believe that IDE will disappear in favor of SCSI. The en-
tire industry (PC and Macintosh) adopted IDE as a cost-effective
standard, and despite its technical limitations (e.g., the number of supported devices per channel), the industry continues to promote and use it. This fact alone maintains a price differential between SCSI and IDE. If SCSI adapters were included as standard equipment on the average desktop, the picture would be different. But unless that happens, the picture isn't likely to change.<br>
<i>--Sean Daily</i>

Sean Daily June 05, 2001


You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.




Top Viewed ArticlesView all articles
PsExec

This freeware utility lets you execute processes on a remote system and redirect output to the local system. ...

Microsoft Delivers Service Pack 2 Beta 2 for Vista, Server 2008

Microsoft on Tuesday announced the availability of the Beta 2 version of Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. Since both operating systems were developed from the same code base, they have a common servicing structure and thus ...

Windows Live Wave 3 Services Launch Begins

Late Tuesday, Microsoft began rolling out the services portion of its Windows Live Wave 3 launch. The company is shipping an unprecedented number of new and improved services that build off the success of Hotmail and Windows Live Messenger and attempt ...


Storage Whitepapers Combining Deduplication and VMware Disaster Recovery: Cascading Savings Improves Cost Effectiveness

Virtualizing Microsoft Exchange Server 2007

StoreVault SnapManagers for Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server

Related Events Storage Consolidation for Your Microsoft Applications: Reducing Cost and Complexity

Optimize your VMware Infrastructure with the New Releases from the Symantec Backup Exec Family

Virtualization Management

Check out our list of Free Email Newsletters!

Storage eBooks A Guide to Windows Certification and Public Keys

SQL Server Administration for Oracle DBAs

Keeping Your Business Safe from Attack: Encryption and Certificate Services

Related Storage Resources Become a VIP member of the Windows IT Pro community!
Get it all with the VIP CD and VIP access. A $500+ value for only $279!

Subscribe to Windows IT Pro!
Solve your toughest technical problems with our experts and access 10,000 + articles online. 30% off

Monthly Online Pass - Only $5.95!
Get instant access to 10,000+ articles from Windows IT Pro Magazine!

TechNet Virtual Labs
Evaluate and test Microsoft's newest products.


Windows IT Pro Home Register FAQ for Windows WinInfo News
Europe Edition About Us Contact Us/Customer Service Media Kit Affiliates / Licensing  
SQL Server Magazine Office & SharePoint Pro Windows Dev Pro IT Job Hound ITTV
IT Library Technology Resource Directory Connected Home Windows Excavator Windows SuperSite 
 
 Windows IT Pro is a Division of Penton Media Inc.
 Copyright © 2008 Penton Media, Inc., All rights reserved. Terms and Use | Privacy Statement | Reprints and Licensing