Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 15:24:27 MET From: sos@login.dknet.dk (S|ren Schmidt) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: phk@ref.tfs.com, faq@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, hasty@star-gate.com Subject: Re: Why IDE is bad Message-ID: <9503221424.AA12175@login.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199503221305.XAA14540@godzilla.zeta.org.au>; from "Bruce Evans" at Mar 22, 95 11:05 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> >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.
Hmm, most of the drives would intterupt once each sector anyway
even when doing DMA, so there is really nothing gained...
> >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fancy cache/interface electronics to make up for outdated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.
Actually I think not, the IDE thing is about making CHEAP disks
for the average PC user. It is much better advertising to have a
500MB drive than a 300MB drive, who cares about performance ???
So we will get bigger/cheaper IDE drives, sure, but "better"
nah, that doesn't sell hardware to Joe Random User....
We in the *nix world are very atypical PC users, who CARES about
performance, but we will also have to pay the price for it. As
a vice man once said "there is no such thing as a free lunch"...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Soren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org | sos@login.dknet.dk) FreeBSD Core Team
So much code to hack -- so little time
..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9503221424.AA12175>