I'm upgrading my 3-yr. old PC desktop to a new system (my Intel P4 is getting kinda old:-)

Given that the new box will have an Intel Core-2 2.4 Ghz processor, Asus P5K-V mobo plus 4 GB DDR2 RAM, etc. etc, I have a question for the HD mavens out there:

Should I keep my two Seagate ST 37297 SCSI hard drives (70 GB/each, 10,000 RPM) and Adaptec SCSI card (Ultra 160) OR just get a new SATA HD (looking at a WD 150GB 10,000 RPM)?

I've had great performance and stability with the current configuration -- but don't want to pass up performance & (possibly) better speed with a new gen HD. Have never owned SATA -- still in the dark ages -- so would appreciate any suggestions or advice before I order the new (custom) system.

Sounds like you have a pretty hot setup already. But if you're considering SATA, you may want to wait a couple months and pick up a WD VelociRaptor

I'd keep the SCSI HDDs. Even today a high performance SCSI drive is faster than a SATA drive. The disadvantage is the SCSI drive are more expensive, more louder and will be hotter since SCSI drive are today mostly used in server systems with good air ventilation (therefore noise and temperature is no problem).

Today a drive with serial SCSI (I guess SCA) is the fasted choice.

I personally like SCSI very much, I never ever had compatibility problems between my SCSI devices, but I had compatibility problems with my IDE HDDs and ODDs in the past. But today SCSI is not often to find anymore.

I'd question whether older SCSI drives are indeed "faster" than newer SATA drives. Access times may well be slower than you will find on a Raptor or VelociRaptor. Sustained transfer rates are not all that important in how fast a drive is perceived to be in everyday use. A lot depends on the intended use. If you will be doing a lot of large file transfers from one drive or array to another, then higher transfer rates might save you time. But for everyday use, access times are more important. Newer drives have smaller platters and higher data density that may well provide better performance than an older SCSI drive. It's not all about the raw numbers.

Thanks to those who commented on my dilemma. I'm very tempted to stick with my two 'older' (3 yrs. old) SCSI drives because the throughput, compared with SATA, is probably a draw at best -- and also because SCSI has proven to be so darned reliable for me. Could explain why I've had great success with ripping & burning with no drawbacks. A speedy new mobo, processor and 4 gigs of DDR2 RAM along with the existing HDs should provide a "new life" for my apps

BTW, I'm running Win2K on my current system -- new box will be "upgraded" to XP2

Raw numbers or not and although they are benchmarks that thing kicks some serious butt in the read/write (transfer) especially in the Avg read dept.

What about SAS?

SCSI is still great, but SATA2 is more widely spread these days.

The benchmarks look really good, which prompted me to do a little research on my two Seagate Cheetah 10K.7 (74GB 10,000 RPM 8MB Cache SCSI Ultra320) -- combined with the Adaptec UltraScsi controller -- and came up with:

Performance Transfer Rates Internal Transfer Rate (min): 472 Mbits/sec Internal Transfer Rate (max): 944 Mbits/sec Formatted Int Transfer Rate (min): 59 MBytes/sec Formatted Int Transfer Rate (max): 118 MBytes/sec External (I/O) Transfer Rate (max): 320 MBytes/sec.

I'm not tech-savvy enough to know how that actually compares with the new Raptor, but the Seagate numbers, combined with SCSI's more mature technology, seem more than adequate. And with a new SATA mobo, I can always switch to Raptor-type HDs later on.

Hi
Here's something to look @ Raided (0) SATA II drives.