From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 14 17:12:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B2915400 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:12:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28825; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:12:16 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991214175655.04733770@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:01:17 -0700 To: Terry Lambert From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Cc: dscheidt@enteract.com, tlambert@primenet.com, noslenj@swbell.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199912141928.MAA20974@usr02.primenet.com> References: <4.2.0.58.19991213220839.00c869e0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:28 PM 12/14/1999 , Terry Lambert wrote: > > Also, I'm sure you will agree that hundreds of spindles on one computer > > is not the norm. We shouldn't bog down our core standards because of one > > case that's several sigma off the low end of the probability scale. > >I don't see how core standards are getting bogged down by this; >you personally use IDE, right? I personally use both IDE and SCSI. Even the laptop I'm typing this on now has both. >So it doesn't bog you down, at >least not except in the sense that you are already bogged down >by not being able to interleave your commands because your chosen >interface doesn't full implement its core standard. Again, I haven't chosen just one interface. But what I'd like to see is a core standard that offers the maximum performance at the least cost in the greatest number of applications. A full implementation of SCSI features over a fast TTL interface with relatively short cables would be the best of both worlds. Of course, none of the other interfaces would go away, so if you really wanted to run a 15-foot cable SCSI would still be there. > > Also, putting that much disk space on a single machine may not be a good idea. > > If it has that much data to serve up or search, it's probably going to be > > strapped for CPU cycles or network bandwidth. > >I only have two things to say to that: > >1) Altavista >2) www.cdrom.com Neither should be one big machine. (Yes, I know that CDROM.COM is, but that's not the way I personally would have implemented it. I would have used at least two machines for redundancy's sake, if for no other reason.) --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message