From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 25 18:13:52 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id SAA22573 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:13:52 -0800 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA22567 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:13:50 -0800 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA19802; Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:13:45 -0800 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199503260213.SAA19802@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: Why IDE is bad To: teren@lyria.stanford.edu (Terry Lee) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:13:45 -0800 (PST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Terry Lee" at Mar 25, 95 06:13:14 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 817 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On a SCSI bus, I can have multiple drives and if I balance the load on > the drives then I am able to increase the overall throughput of my disk > subsystem up to the theoretical max of 10 MB/s right? > > Is this true for IDE or E-IDE? E-IDE can achieve bus throughput > 10 > MB/s but there are few drives that can sustain such transfers. But if I > have two drives on the same IDE adapter and I balance the load across the > two drives, will I get the same performance benefit as with multiple SCSI > drives? > > What if I have two drives on two different IDE adapters? IDE still needs to CPU to actually move the data... -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'