Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:05:14 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, andrews@technologist.com, Doug@gorean.org, bright@wintelcom.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, doconnor@gsoft.com.au, dscheidt@enteract.com Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9912101801450.2681-100000@acp.swbell.net> In-Reply-To: <199912100213.TAA04264@usr02.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Terry Lambert wrote: >> > > Yeah, the new box I'm evaluating has SCA LVD SCSI, and it goes a >> > > lot faster. I'm compiling -Stable and so far -j 6, 8 and 12 have all >> > It _SHOULD_ go faster with SCSI as opposed to (E)IDE/UDMA/etc. [snip] >This means that for server systems, A SCSI drive with a tagged >command queue depth of 128 (common on a number of IBM drives, >just to keep the vendor the same) can support 128 times as much >concurrency as an IDE drive, everything else about the drive >being equal. This may be a stupid question, but would soft updates improve IDE performance in relation to SCSI? Or would it simply block longer less often? -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9912101801450.2681-100000>