problem solved: http://www.ebay.com/itm/190765673661

Also use the dchs. The 10k drive is just too noisy unless you happen to be deaf. A 486 will be a bottleneck on both drives so save your ears.

Thanks. Did not think of that.... 🤣
A bottleneck you say? Slower hard drives yes that's a bottleneck.
Yet how will it become a bottleneck by getting too fast?

luckybob wrote:

problem solved: http://www.ebay.com/itm/190765673661

Also use the dchs. The 10k drive is just too noisy unless you happen to be deaf. A 486 will be a bottleneck on both drives so save your ears.

I agree with the loud SCSI drives, one made me want to pile a mountain of sandbags on top of it and the 1GB drive I ended up using in my old 486 was very rapid already..for a harddrive at least 🤣

Yes. They are loud. Just not as loud as first generation Socket-775 stock coolers.
Those without cobber core, when they run at full load.

These drives are about as loud as some of the old 500 to 800 megabyte ide drives.
Those wich are running slower than 7200 rpm.

What drives sould I look for then? 7200/5400/4700rpm SCSI drives?
I would love to have SCSI in my 486 class machine.

brostenen wrote:

...how will it become a bottleneck by getting too fast?

He's not saying that the drives being too fast will make the computer run slower. What he meant was that the computer itself (processor, motherboard and memory) is so slow compared to the SCSI hard drive that the drive will never be put under full load, therefore it is not necessary to have such a high-end drive in a computer that relatively slow. You can get by just fine with a less-noisy drive running at lower RPMs with no performance hit whatsoever on a system like that.

torindkflt wrote:

brostenen wrote:

...how will it become a bottleneck by getting too fast?

He's not saying that the drives being too fast will make the computer run slower. What he meant was that the computer itself (processor, motherboard and memory) is so slow compared to the SCSI hard drive that the drive will never be put under full load, therefore it is not necessary to have such a high-end drive in a computer that relatively slow. You can get by just fine with a less-noisy drive running at lower RPMs with no performance hit whatsoever on a system like that.

exactly. I like the 4.5 -10gb 7200 rpm scsi drives. They are quick and are very quiet. (relatively) If I need anything larger I just use a new sata drive and an adapter.

torindkflt wrote:

brostenen wrote:

...how will it become a bottleneck by getting too fast?

He's not saying that the drives being too fast will make the computer run slower. What he meant was that the computer itself (processor, motherboard and memory) is so slow compared to the SCSI hard drive that the drive will never be put under full load, therefore it is not necessary to have such a high-end drive in a computer that relatively slow. You can get by just fine with a less-noisy drive running at lower RPMs with no performance hit whatsoever on a system like that.

Meh.... That's not a real bottleneck in my eye's. It's like the same if you would use a sata drive in a Pentium133 with an adaptor. The 9 GB drive is actually giving me 1.7 Mb in transfer rate according to Norton sysinfo in MS-Dos-6.22.
Did this on a testbench because of the drive heat.

You might also consider this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/331537372849?_trksid= … K%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

brostenen wrote:

The 9 GB drive is actually giving me 1.7 Mb in transfer rate according to Norton sysinfo in MS-Dos-6.22.

You are only getting 1.7 Mb/s with a 10k RPM drive?

Lucky for me the 1GB Toshiba drive I use in my 386 build is double height 3.5" and fairly cool.

PCBONEZ wrote:

brostenen wrote:

The 9 GB drive is actually giving me 1.7 Mb in transfer rate according to Norton sysinfo in MS-Dos-6.22.

You are only getting 1.7 Mb/s with a 10k RPM drive?

Yeah... It is on an Adaptech 1542 ISA controller, using 50 pin SCSI-II cable and on a 5x86-133 machine.
So I guess it is adequate as it is, remembering that 800 to 1200 kilobyte/s was kind of standard in 94.
Love that controller, as it is looking awesomme, and well... Has Floppy interface on it.

Controller is this: (just random picture from google)

kanecvr wrote:

Lucky for me the 1GB Toshiba drive I use in my 386 build is double height 3.5" and fairly cool.

Need to find one such drive. 5400rpm should do the trick, as 7200 was more like from the late 90's and not the early.

Hmn... an ISA controller um in a 486 class machine? Unless it is an early ISA only machine this is the wrong controller for that PC. Some VLB or the onboard one in PCI boards should do much better.

Have plenty of SCSI cards for PCI. The ISA might go into my 80286 then.
Only if I can find a suitable 5400 rpm disk for it.
On my newly rebuild Pentium 166 Non-MMX, I am using SCSI.
(And a good cooling solution)

At the moment, I am not using any SCSI or CF-adaptors on my 5x56.
I have a 3.1gb Seagate medalist installed.

If I'm not mistaken 16-bit ISA can do up to 8.3 MB/s so the drive only getting 1.7 MB/s though makes it seem like something is wrong.
It's been a long time since I did anything significant with ISA so I could be all wrong. - Just doesn't seem right, that's all.
.

luckybob wrote:

problem solved: http://www.ebay.com/itm/190765673661

Those work very well. I use them in almost all my systems.

For my 10,000 RPM SCSI drive, I went a step further.

Shure it is that good? It is sleve barring and not ball.

PCBONEZ wrote:

If I'm not mistaken 16-bit ISA can do up to 8.3 MB/s so the drive only getting 1.7 MB/s though makes it seem like something is wrong.
It's been a long time since I did anything significant with ISA so I could be all wrong. - Just doesn't seem right, that's all.
.

Hmmm.... Do you have a link to a good website, explaining how to set it up.
This way I can cross-check if I have done anything wrong.

brostenen wrote:

Shure it is that good? It is sleve barring and not ball.

While I do have a few of that exact model in the eBay link, I also have several other different models in use as well. They all work about the same. Some measure of airflow over your HDD is a good idea, however you choose to go about achieving it.

I agree that a ball-bearing fan is preferable, but I use what I have and don't think much about it until something fails.