From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Dec 8 6:20:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63301571A for ; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 06:19:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28196; Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:19:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des) To: will andrews Cc: Doug Barton , Alfred Perlstein , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, "Daniel O'Connor" , David Scheidt Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 08 Dec 1999 15:19:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: will andrews's message of "Wed, 08 Dec 1999 07:40:24 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070097 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.97) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org will andrews writes: > On 02-Dec-99 Doug Barton wrote: > > Yeah, the new box I'm evaluating has SCA LVD SCSI, and it goes a > > lot faster. I'm compiling -Stable and so far -j 6, 8 and 12 have all > It _SHOULD_ go faster with SCSI as opposed to (E)IDE/UDMA/etc. Why, because "Scuzzy" is a cooler name than "Eye-dee-ee"? SCSI has higher overhead than IDE, so for a single-disk system (or a two-disk system, provided each is on a separate IDE bus), IDE wins (given otherwise identical disks, of course). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message