From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May  1 18:39:59 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA20373
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA20350
          Wed, 1 May 1996 18:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA10906; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:28:40 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199605020128.SAA10906@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: lmbench IDE anomaly
To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it (Luigi Rizzo)
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 18:28:40 -0700 (MST)
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]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 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.