From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 1 15:35:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA25817 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 15:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jmb@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA25809 Wed, 1 May 1996 15:35:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" Message-Id: <199605012235.PAA25809@freefall.freebsd.org> Subject: Re: lmbench IDE anomaly To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it (Luigi Rizzo) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, koshy@india.hp.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199605012113.XAA09988@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> from "Luigi Rizzo" at May 1, 96 11:13:05 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > Anyway, the results showing SCSI being better than IDE are certainly > > valid. > > So we are back to the regular "SCSI is better than IDE" debate... there is not a debate. my 486dx2-66 with 16MB and scsi drives will perform a "make world" faster than several 586-75's with 16+MB and *IDE* drives. a 586-90, assuming long integer data set of 100kB, is over twice as fast as my cpu. but the ide drives slow the compiles horribly. ( use Hint to get the cpu computation speeds http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/scl/HINT/HINT.html) now maybe its the driver, maybe its the IDE drives themselves. i aint re-writing the ide driver, so i dont care (at this point). dare, jis eyent naw dabayt. -- Jonathan M. Bresler FreeBSD Postmaster jmb@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD--4.4BSD Unix for PC clones, source included. http://www.freebsd.org/