Scanner dilemma

[Tibbits]

Well.. a decent SCSI card could be used for other things as well..

[Matt]

My SCSI Epson Perfection scanner came with a PCI SCSI card, all for about $200 I believe. If all you need a SCSI card for is a scanner, then this would be fine. It is a basic card with 10MB/s throughput... not something you would want to hook a hard drive to. It would let you hook both scanners up if you so desired though :)

[Binky]

Got a new computer. When I tried installing my old scanner I found that the scsi card wouldn't fit in the new machine. Turns out I need either a new pci scsi card or a new scanner. The cards are about $100 and a new scanner would run anywhere from $100 - 300 and up.

My scanner, an HP ScanJet 4p, cost me $750 about 5 years ago. If scanners are like everything else in computerdom a new $200 scanner would probably be a better one, but I'm not sure.

What would you do?

[YFS200]

What do ya know, I have a HP 4p too. Got it when new. Lot of years ago.

I hate tossing out working hardware.
For about $200 bucks. You could by someting new. I have played with the new scanners are school. They are better, but mostly smaller and cheaper.

If I where you, I would spend the $200 bucks on a Adaptec AHA-2940 scsi card. See if you can find a used one. The HP 4p scanners are known work horses. They work with anything. If you buy something off the shelf now, your on your own.

You can run other things off the SCSI card. I have a Zip drive on it, and I had an old 2X CD-RW. I wonder if the LS120 comes in a SCSI version.

YFS200[nbsp]

[Binky]

If I where you, I would spend the $200 bucks on a Adaptec AHA-2940 scsi card
Thanks for the tip, YFS200. I don't know a scuzzy card from a fuzzy bear. I looked through the want ads for used adaptec cards and I see a lot of models, including the one you mentioned, ranging from 50-350 bucks, more or less. How can I tell what will work with the hp4p and my new Dell? The guy from Dell just said I needed a "pci scsi".


[This message has been edited by Binky (edited 02-10-01@2:42 pm)]

[louyovin]

You may want to check out www.adaptec.com (http://www.adaptec.com) to see which SCSI controller you need (there are other brands, I have always used Adaptec). You can get one that will do fine for a scanner for well under $100, or get one with BIOS and support for 160mhz stuff for $200+. (I have a 29160 connected to a 10K RPM HDD and it smokes (almost literally).
It depends on the type of connector(s) and which version of SCSI you have. There is a 25 pin (looks like parallel port), Adaptec 2906 will work fine (about $47).

There is the newer 50 pin, high density connector: Adaptec 2930 will work here (about $80).

Then there is the older Centronics "big moose" type connector. I don't think that Adaptec makes/sells controllers for these anymore, you would probably have to use a converter to connect to one of the above, or look elsewhere.

I recently bought one to connect a client's HP scanner, model 5 something or other, and another to connect a SCSI Umax scanner. I have used both models and for scanners and CD burners, they did fine. In fact, we have one of the 2930's running a scanner and a Sony DAT tape drive (external).

Lou Yovin

[Binky]

Thanks, all, for your help. Needing to get stuff scanned asap I just broke down and bought a new scanner. The Epson Perfection 1240U.

b

[YFS200]

I have a AHA-2940 running the 4p and Zip now. Works well. I am not to sure how slow/old of an device you can put on a newer card. Found a good site.

http://www.scsifaq.org

louyovin:
Really? Cool. I just did the U160 with 10k HDD things a month ago. Man is that puppy fast. Want to swap stats?


#########################################
Graphics server: A750 Quant 10k SCSI RAID-1

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 200.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]12.18
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 22.27
*****************************************
Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 5.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 1[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 2[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 3[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 4
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]3.08[nbsp][nbsp]2.30[nbsp][nbsp]2.36[nbsp][nbsp]3.16[nbsp][nbsp]2.84
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 3.20[nbsp][nbsp]3.99[nbsp][nbsp]3.93[nbsp][nbsp]3.08[nbsp][nbsp]3.44

#########################################

#########################################
Graphics server: Same as above only on WD 7200rpm UMA/33 RAID-1
Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 200.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]4.19
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 4.33

********************************************
Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 5.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 1[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 2[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 3[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 4
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]0.74[nbsp][nbsp]0.74[nbsp][nbsp]0.89[nbsp][nbsp]0.98[nbsp][nbsp]0.78
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 0.68[nbsp][nbsp]0.62[nbsp][nbsp]0.65[nbsp][nbsp]0.64[nbsp][nbsp]0.67

##########################################


As you can see, the 10k drives on the U160 card just scream. I may never go back to IDE again. Lest not for anything that requires some speed. I really wish that setup was in my computer:)

How are you doing for heat on the 10k drives? They seem to run very hot.

I uploaded the little testing app Iused to here.
http://www.pollyspies.com/temp1/

YFS200

[Jeff]

Here is what I got with my onboard Adaptec 7890 controller (Supermicro board) and the Quantum Atlas 10K II (9 gig)

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 200.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]11.43
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 33.51

******************************

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 5.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 1[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 2[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 3[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 4
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]3.11[nbsp][nbsp]2.99[nbsp][nbsp]3.08[nbsp][nbsp]3.14[nbsp][nbsp]3.11
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 5.17[nbsp][nbsp]5.82[nbsp][nbsp]5.33[nbsp][nbsp]5.71[nbsp][nbsp]5.52
Here is the same computer with a Maxtor 27 gig 7200 rpm IDE drive:

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 200.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]4.41
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 4.36

******************************

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 5.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 1[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 2[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 3[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 4
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]0.88[nbsp][nbsp]0.88[nbsp][nbsp]0.88[nbsp][nbsp]0.88[nbsp][nbsp]0.88
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 0.86[nbsp][nbsp]0.84[nbsp][nbsp]0.85[nbsp][nbsp]0.86[nbsp][nbsp]0.85
[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited 02-12-01@04:21 am)]

[louyovin]

Drive temperature is a concern, although I have an extra fan in each case. I did put a bay cooler on the IBM drive, but decided to leave the WD alone and see what happens. If they get too hot, they will power down... which does wonders for the operating system <g>. This happened once when I had the drives sitting on the floor, experimenting. They also got too hot to touch. After mounting them in the case, they seem to sync a lot of the heat off to the chassis which makes a second (large) case fan useful.

Readings:
Western Digital, 18G, LVD-160, 10K RPM drive, Adaptec 160 controller, FAT32 partition just defraged (makes a difference). Increased file size to get more consistent readings, numbers don't change much:

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 30.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]24.94
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 25.95

Quantum, LVD 40, I think it is 5400 RPM, same controller.

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 30.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]13.72
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 13.06
This partition is formatted NTFS, no data. NTFS versus FAT32 does not seem to affect results.

Different system: same controller type, has an IBM 18G, LVD-80, 10K RPM drive.

Disk Performance, MBytes/sec
File size: 30.0 MBytes

thread:[nbsp][nbsp] 0
write:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]18.65
read:[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] 18.28

[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] It is interesting to note that dual processors don't make much diference (same results with only one running versus 2). Even with multiple threads. With SCSI I think that makes sense as processor load used to be the reason for recommending SCSI. I did try running startup cop and stopping a lot of progams from firing up at bootup and it does improve speed a little when testing on the drives where those programs are loaded. These numbers are with everything like I normally run.
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]It is probably worth noting that Norton's antivirus programs will significantly degrade performance of files that come across the network. We benchmarked some stuff with netbench or some such and I got an index of something like 7 with NAV on and 35 with it off (I have no idea what it is 35 of). Makes sense when you consider that it has to look at everything that comes off the network.
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] Both of my systems are SCSI, dual processor machines with W2K and I run Microsoft Visual Studio programs (mostly C++ and VFP)and Linux on one and Office 2K stuff, Adobe GoLive and do most of my scripting (Perl and VBScript) on the other. It is also my surfing and usenet machine. I can't remember the last time either system crashed (with the exception of the hdd powering down as pointed out above). One system is a Dell Workstation, the other is a home made rig with Tyan mobo. The system with the WD has the slowest processors, 450's. I attribute the crash avoidance to having buried a dead chicken in the back yard, under a full moon. :-) Well, that and the use of ECC memory. I also have the only system I know of that is under clocked, running 700 meg processors at 600 meg. Life is interesting when one is anchored in the slow group <s>.

FWIIW: I learned the hard way that SCA adapters are not all the same, some work with LVD and some do not. If they don't say they will, they won't. Guess which one I bought first? I would not recommend getting an SCA drive for a non SCA case now that I have done it...twice. Experience: recognizing a mistake the second time you make it.

Lou Yovin
Money isn't everything, but it keeps the kids in touch.