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 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970326172507.27209F-100000@zen.cypher.net> In-Reply-To: <199703262139.PAA02605@horton.iaces.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.970326172507.27209F-100000>