From owner-freebsd-chat  Fri Dec 10 22:21:38 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD9214F43
	for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:21:35 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
	by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19615;
	Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:06:53 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991210230453.046806e0@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:06:47 -0700
To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>,
	Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it?
Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991210233342.61393A-100000@shell-1.enteract.
 com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9912102024270.306-100000@acp.swbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 10:45 PM 12/10/1999 , David Scheidt wrote:

>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.

Why wouldn't IDE retain an advantage -- so long as you put the disks on
separate controllers to avoid having one block another? (I like
SCSI too, but given the realities -- or unrealities -- of hard drive
pricing I'm always looking to milk more performance out of IDE drives
when I can.)

--Brett


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message