Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:47:18 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au Cc: davidg@Root.COM, dutchman@spase.nl, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HDD cpu usage (IDE vs. SCSI). Message-ID: <199604021147.VAA11954@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>No, you're not understanding. For a given CPU, IDE will _always_ use more
>CPU time than SCSI. Period.
Really? Please give numbers for a PIO mode 4 IDE controller vs an ST01
SCSI controller :-). Please give numbers for your choice of controllers
vs my choices of applications an i/o access patterns. I'll choose a
memory intensive application that stalls the CPU waiting for the SCSI
controller. I'll arrange the i/o so that memory caching is defeated
at strategic places.
>If you have lots of free CPU, then IDE is fine, but if you feel that your
>CPU has better things to do with its time than copy data to and from
>your disk, then SCSI is the only solution that makes sense.
I think lots of free CPU is the usual case. E.g., right now on freebsd.org:
3:40AM up 19 days, 11 mins, 16 users, load averages: 0.41, 0.32, 0.31
I would prefer lower latency to lower overhead in most cases. IDE disks
have natural advantages in this area (no complicated SCSI protocol to
interpreted by the slow i/o processor on the controller).
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604021147.VAA11954>