From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed May 26 18:56:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from ryouko.nas.nasa.gov (ryouko.nas.nasa.gov [129.99.34.113]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3912A15713 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:56:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from greg@ryouko.nas.nasa.gov) Received: from ryouko.nas.nasa.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ryouko.nas.nasa.gov (8.9.3/NAS8.8.7n) with ESMTP id SAA11635 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199905270156.SAA11635@ryouko.nas.nasa.gov> To: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Support for Symbios vs. Adaptect SCSI In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 May 1999 18:35:22 PDT." <199905270135.SAA04503@implode.root.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 18:56:25 -0700 From: "Gregory P. Smith" Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >> The Adaptec chips are generally better supported in > >> FreeBSD and I wouldn't consider anything else for systems that I build. > >> > >> David Greenman > > > >Could you elaborate on what you mean by "better supported"? > > > >Do you mean: > > > > 1) Has fewer bugs? > > 2) Makes better use of the hardware capabilities? > > 3) Has a maintainer who is willing/able to devote > > more time to the task? > > "Yes". Anything further on this needs to come from Justin Gibbs. > > -DG > David Greenman I can believe 1 & 3, but could you (Justin?) elaborate on 2? I've always been under the impression that everything after the old ISA Adaptec 1542CF has been basically riding on Adaptec's brand name to justify their cards costing 2-3x as much as the equivilent Symbios (NCR) based card. [You can pick up UW-SCSI 875 based Symbios cards for $75 bucks these days] Sun uses the Symbios chipset (875) in their Ultras, Digital included it (810) on some of their older Alpha motherboards (I don't know if they integrate SCSI on any of the newer ones). comments? Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message