From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Oct 10 17:45:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from peak.mountin.net (peak.mountin.net [207.227.119.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2936537B502 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by peak.mountin.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA13204; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:45:32 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jeff-ml@mountin.net) Received: from dial-65.max1.wa.cyberlynk.net(207.227.118.65) by peak.mountin.net via smap (V1.3) id sma013202; Tue Oct 10 19:45:19 2000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.20001010190749.00c5cf00@207.227.119.2> X-Sender: jeff-ml@207.227.119.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:45:03 -0500 To: Leonard Chung , Warner Losh From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Bad IDE Drive Cc: kline@tao.thought.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001010124858.026637c0@yikes.com> References: <200010100509.XAA18135@harmony.village.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20001009190324.028c6d58@yikes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 01:17 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Leonard Chung wrote: >Yes, I'm aware of the differing RPMs. SCSI drives actually now are up to >15,000RPM to it shouldn't be long before IDE is up to 10KRPM. > >The differing RPMs is more of a marketing decision than any inherent >limitation in IDE itself. SCSI is a premium product, so it gets the higher >RPMs first and sometimes bigger buffers, but again, this is due not to the >SCSI bus having higher performance. Where the focus is on spindle speed >for SCSI, the focus for IDE is on areal density. IDE drives actually give >better performance for the dollar in MAPS (megabyte accesses per second), >KAPS (kilobyte accesses/s), and much better performance in sequential >performance (i.e. all round) and for that price, you get the benefit of >redundancy. So with IDE you get better performance and less cost. This smells like a techie sales pitch. Little meaningful info regardless of terms and large words. Did I mention I'm a hard sell? You would need follow up with figures that involve more than one transaction. Many more. The hardware may be similar, but the interface is where the "real world" difference will be evident in a busy production environment. The vagaries referring to price I must presume are talking about RAID arrays (otherwise it's non-scenical). Seeing a comparison between the same array with IDE vs SCSI would be interesting. Drives should have very similar numbers using your comparison. With IDE I think most would agree that initial cost will be lower. However, longevity counts, so total cost for the lifecycle should be considered. The longer the period, the more likely that IDE will end up costing more. Going strictly by drive specs and current street cost isn't near enough to sell me, and surely others, on your ideas. Don't take offense either, there just seem to be a few holes that need to be fixed. Even if you are referring to a workstation or single user application where I have opted for older "slower" SCSI drives than years newer IDE drives for performance reasons. Anxiously awaiting the test results... 8-) Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message