From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Mar 22 05:13:39 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id FAA04683 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 05:13:39 -0800
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id FAA04676; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 05:13:19 -0800
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA14540; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 23:05:50 +1000
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 23:05:50 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199503221305.XAA14540@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: phk@ref.tfs.com, sos@login.dknet.dk
Subject: Re: Why IDE is bad
Cc: faq@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, hasty@star-gate.com
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>And that is the main thing on E-IDE, the drives are designed
>with enough onboard cache, that coretest etc. reports transfer
>rates close to the interface speed (13MB sec or so), but the
>drive cannot hold this speed when it has to read from the media.

This is also good for reducing interrupt overhead.

>And here is the catch, in that most el cheapo IDE drives has
>inferior drive mechanics (hey they are cheap), and then some
>fancy cache/interface electronics to make up for outdated
>hardware....

I expect better IDE drives would have been avaiable if the
interface had supported them.

Bruce