Date: 08 Dec 1999 15:19:23 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: will andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>, David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <xzpzovla51w.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: will andrews's message of "Wed, 08 Dec 1999 07:40:24 -0500 (EST)" References: <XFMail.991208074024.andrews@technologist.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
will andrews <andrews@technologist.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpzovla51w.fsf>