?
Solved

Ultra 160 vs Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Disk

Posted on 2008-06-18
11
Medium Priority
?
2,533 Views
Last Modified: 2011-10-19
I have an old server, an IBM xSeries 360, which according to the documentation, can only support up to Ultra160 disks.
I'm having a hard time finding Ultra160 disk, while there are a lot of Ultra320 on the market.
I wonder if an Ultra320 disk will still work in this server.

I was thinking if getting a few of these: http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=st3146707lc_cheetah_10k7_ultra320_scsi_146_gb_hard_drive&vgnextoid=cd0d99f4fa74c010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&vgnextchannel=4161d21c2f32b010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&reqPage=Model

For my experience in IDE and SATA disks, when you get a disk with newer and faster technology in an old equipment, the only problem is that the full speed/transfer is not achieved, however, they still work. But in SCSI disks I have no idea.

I'm attaching the IBM xSeries 360 Specs Sheet.


X360.pdf
0
Comment
Question by:fischermx
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • +3
11 Comments
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:0xSaPx0
ID: 21817199
It would work. Performance would be terrible and the drives would fail much sooner.

I would not recommend doing this.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:fischermx
ID: 21817238
Really????? :(
Why?
0
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:0xSaPx0
ID: 21817272
The drives would have to "step down" in order to run at the slower speed, they are not designed to do this and would not do it well. In addition the SCSI controller may not even recognize the drives properly.

0
Get your Disaster Recovery as a Service basics

Disaster Recovery as a Service is one go-to solution that revolutionizes DR planning. Implementing DRaaS could be an efficient process, easily accessible to non-DR experts. Learn about monitoring, testing, executing failovers and failbacks to ensure a "healthy" DR environment.

 
LVL 4

Expert Comment

by:albuitra
ID: 21817289
ypu have to get the apropiate cables to connect the 320 to 160
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:fischermx
ID: 21817316
But they are all 80pins connectors... why different cables?

Actually, they don't even need cables, they are hot pluggable!


0
 
LVL 10

Expert Comment

by:0xSaPx0
ID: 21817349
Let me be clear, this will end badly for you and I don't recommend pursuing this route.

I also believe that your SCSI controller in this system may not detect the drives or be able to communicate with them.
0
 
LVL 34

Assisted Solution

by:jamietoner
jamietoner earned 800 total points
ID: 21817628
They will work fine. These statements "they are not designed to do this and would not do it well" WRONG and "Performance would be terrible and the drives would fail much sooner" also WRONG. U320 drives are backwards compatible and should work without issue on a U160 controller, the performance will be the same as a U160 drive and will not affect the drive's MTBF.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:fischermx
ID: 21817660
jamietoner:

Actually, I've just found another reference right here in EE, that agrees with you:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Storage/Misc/Q_23173408.html

Also, in this website:
http://www.scsita.org/aboutscsi/ultra320/faq.html

Someone here, made the same question:
http://www.motherboardpoint.com/t146869-ultra160-vs-ultra320.html

And here:
http://hardware.mcse.ms/archive48-2005-7-209882.html

0
 
LVL 70

Expert Comment

by:garycase
ID: 21817828
The drives will work fine !!   The performance of the drives is NOT impacted at all --> they still rotate at the same speed; the seek times aren't any different; etc.   The ONLY difference is that the interface speed is different (Ultra 160 vs Ultra 320).   ... and it certainly has NO impact on the reliability of the drives !! [r.e. "... the drives would fail much sooner ..."].

0
 
LVL 70

Accepted Solution

by:
garycase earned 1200 total points
ID: 21817850
... in fact, unless you're using an array which could support a sustained transfer rate higher than Ultra 160 speeds, the ONLY time there would be any difference in performance (compared to an Ultra 320 controller) will be in transfers to/from the drive's buffers => a very low % of disk operations.

Bottom line:  Buy the disks you listed.  They'll work just fine :-)

0
 
LVL 96

Expert Comment

by:Lee W, MVP
ID: 21818722
I complete agree - these drives should be just fine.... I have no idea what 0xSaPx0 is talking about who where he's getting his information.
0

Featured Post

Independent Software Vendors: We Want Your Opinion

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

What do we know about Legacy Video Conferencing? - Full IT support needed! - Complicated systems at outrageous prices! - Intense training required! Highfive believes we need to embrace a new alternative.
This article shows how to use a free utility called 'Parkdale' to easily test the performance and benchmark any Hard Drive(s) installed in your computer. We also look at RAM Disks and their speed comparisons.
In this video, Percona Director of Solution Engineering Jon Tobin discusses the function and features of Percona Server for MongoDB. How Percona can help Percona can help you determine if Percona Server for MongoDB is the right solution for …
In this video, Percona Solutions Engineer Barrett Chambers discusses some of the basic syntax differences between MySQL and MongoDB. To learn more check out our webinar on MongoDB administration for MySQL DBA: https://www.percona.com/resources/we…

765 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question