Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.
1706 views

SCSI controllers for maximum throughput?

Question:

For maximum throughput, would we be better off with an Adaptec 39160 (comes
with two 160mb/s external ports) to drive our two Quantum tape drives...
OR

Sould we buy two controllers (say 29160 with single external 160mb/s ports)
to use in our server with PCI-X bus?

At first I would think two controllers would be faster than one, but then I
wonder......

Would it make a difference? Does a dual port SCSI controller keep up with
two single controllers?

Any thoughts?

Thanks, Graham


Labels (2)
0 Likes
2 Replies
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: SCSI controllers for maximum throughput?

I don't know what kind of particular tape drive you are thinking about,
but even high end tape drives have transfer speeds quite a bit below
what typical Ultra-160 or Ultra-320 interfaces can handle. So from the
performance point of view, one single channel SCSI controller would
certainly be enough.
A dual channel controller might just increase the reliability as with
the tape drives on different channels, one tape drive cannot interfere
with the other one. However that would be the only consideration that
could justify a dual channel controller or 2 separate controllers. From
the performance point of view, a single controller would certainly be
enough and a simple PCI slot as well.

--
Marcel Cox (using XanaNews 1.17.5.9)
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: SCSI controllers for maximum throughput?

Thanks for your input. We have several Quantum Superloaders on a
Windows2003 server that is being pushed to the limit by CommVault Galaxy.
We recently had some speed issues where backups were taking longer than
desired - thus the quest to reduce bottlenecks where ever possible.
We've since purchased some dual channel 39160 cards and they are working
very nicely. When we considered connecting multiple SCSI devices to this
server, the topic of separate controllers came up for max. throughput.
Turns out that separate controllers in our case wasn't necessary.
Regards, Graham

"Marcel Cox" <cimetmc@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:HkLLe.5279$RK5.206@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
>I don't know what kind of particular tape drive you are thinking about,
> but even high end tape drives have transfer speeds quite a bit below
> what typical Ultra-160 or Ultra-320 interfaces can handle. So from the
> performance point of view, one single channel SCSI controller would
> certainly be enough.
> A dual channel controller might just increase the reliability as with
> the tape drives on different channels, one tape drive cannot interfere
> with the other one. However that would be the only consideration that
> could justify a dual channel controller or 2 separate controllers. From
> the performance point of view, a single controller would certainly be
> enough and a simple PCI slot as well.
>
> --
> Marcel Cox (using XanaNews 1.17.5.9)



0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.