Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 18:28:40 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it (Luigi Rizzo) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, koshy@india.hp.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lmbench IDE anomaly Message-ID: <199605020128.SAA10906@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605012113.XAA09988@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> from "Luigi Rizzo" at May 1, 96 11:13:05 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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... "Better" as in a "lower system overhead unless you've written a PIO4 EIDE driver that you haven't shared with the rest of us and overcome the interrupt bugs in 3 out of the 4 most popular IDE controller chipsets and overcome the PIO4 probe crashing non-PIO4 systems and even then, the DMA overhead is slightly higher than SCSI and EIDE CDROM's use SCSI commands over the IDE interface anyway" kind of way. Purely "subjective". ;-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605020128.SAA10906>