Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 01:12:21 -0800 (PST) From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> To: hasty@star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, faq@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why IDE is bad Message-ID: <199503220912.BAA04694@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199503220105.BAA10094@star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty" at Mar 22, 95 01:05:37 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > I just made a simple test, this shows why IDE is inferior to SCSI for > > > > FreeBSD: > > > > > > > > Western Digital 540 Caviar EIDE disk on IDE controller: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Quantum Empire 2100 SCSI-II disk on VL-buslogic controller > > > > > > Do the above drives have similar performance characteristics? > > > > That is entirely insignificant. The interesting thing is that > Perhaps this is so ... > However, if the IDE drive is fast your data transfer rate could be > faster. As for the CPU load, Western Digital drives support DMA. Now don't ask > me if it works or not or which other IDE drives support DMA. I don't think you will find many ide's faster than the WDC, I know it can run faster on a better IDE-controller, but this is a fairly standard IDE controller so it's a good indication. And yes, but FreeBSD doesn't support DMA in IDE (yet ?)... -- Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@login.dknet.dk> -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503220912.BAA04694>