From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Mar 26 14:30:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA04749
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:30:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cypher.net (black@zen.pratt.edu [205.232.115.155])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA04740
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:30:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from black@localhost) by cypher.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id RAA16662; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:29:49 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:29:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net>
To: "Paul T. Root" <proot@horton.iaces.com>
cc: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@luke.cpl.net>, questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SCSI-II vs Ultra-SCSI
In-Reply-To: <199703262139.PAA02605@horton.iaces.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970326172507.27209F-100000@zen.cypher.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Actually, looking through the SCSI FAQ, it appears that the 1542B is
> 5MB/s, the 1542CF gets you 10. 
> 

yes, and they both use the 50-pin connectors that are *not* on wide and 
ultra scsi drives.

> 
> > You would be well off getting a better card(PCI), such as NCR/Symbios
> > cards. Very cheap, and peform very well.
> 
> I think it was also in the FAQ that *any* current IDE would be higher 
> performance than the 1542B. I have a Gigabyte MB with Triton II with
> the 2 EIDE controllers.
> 

this is the usual argument against scsi, but it is simply wrong.  they 
key to scsi is that the controller and devices are intelligent.  they 
handle a lot of the I/O processing on their own *without* CPU 
intervention.  EIDE requires CPU assistance for just about everything.  
if you have a lot of I/O on your machine, performance will suffer because 
the CPU will be handling so many of the EIDE interrupts.

always go with scsi if cost isn't your absolute highest priority.


b3n