Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 14:31:01 +0200 From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lousy disk perf. under cpu load (was IDE vs SCSI) Message-ID: <19970907143101.34175@keltia.freenix.fr> In-Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3C199709070759=2EJAA08253=40sos=2Efreebsd=2Edk=3E=3B_fro?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?m_S=F8ren_Schmidt_on_Sun=2C_Sep_07=2C_1997_at_09=3A59=3A5?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?4AM_%2B0200?= References: <199709070512.AAA00465@dyson.iquest.net> <199709070759.JAA08253@sos.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Søren Schmidt: > situation has changed ALOT in the last year. The ATA/ATAPI > protocol is getting cleaned up (but is still quite messy), they > have gotten real usable DMA in there, they are working on > overlapped cmd's (not quite there yet, but devices do exist). Why the Hell wasting time turning ATA/ATAPI into another SCSI thingy, but different ? Why no going with SCSI ? > I have done LOTS of tests on my humble little system which > clearly shows that EIDE/ATA4 has come of age... Why reinventing the wheel I'd say ? If SCSI was sold like IDE drives are, they'd get cheaper too... I must miss something. There was a time where SCSI was for high-end systems and IDE for smaller ones. Life was simple. Now they're turning IDE into SCSI. WHY ? -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: There are no limits -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 3.0-CURRENT #29: Tue Aug 26 21:05:09 CEST 1997
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970907143101.34175>