From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Dec 10 21:59:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6055814E23 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:59:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.40]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA55486; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:45:25 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:45:25 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt To: Jay Nelson Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Jay Nelson wrote: > On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Hmm... that suggests you also might not. On a single drive system > with soft updates, would an Ultra IDE perform worse, on par or better > than SCSI with a light to moderate IO load? Under light to moderate IO loads, the disk interface isn't likely to be the overall limiting factor on the machine. You certainly save some money by going with IDE. On a low-end box, perhaps as much as 15 or 20% of the total cost of the machine. Once you move away from the bottom end, or you want more than a couple disks, SCSI looks much better. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message