Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:48:06 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> Cc: Drew Derbyshire <ahd@kew.com>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lousy disk perf. under cpu load (was IDE vs SCSI) Message-ID: <19970908114806.25653@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199709080134.SAA09715@MindBender.serv.net>; from Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com on Sun, Sep 07, 1997 at 06:34:18PM -0700 References: <341344B3.57D10484@kew.com> <199709080134.SAA09715@MindBender.serv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 07, 1997 at 06:34:18PM -0700, Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote: > >> Ollivier Robert wrote: >>> 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 ? > >> Because you can take an EIDE drive and put it on a system with 1990 >> vintage IDE controller, and only take a performance hit. Upward >> compatibility means a lot to any user. > > I think it's more because EIDE is cheaper, and there are a helluva lot > of cheap EIDE drives out there. Plus, some people aren't willing to > spend the extra on SCSI, but still want the performance. Certainly the ability to use a 7 year old IDE controller, when your modern motherboard includes two modern ones, is not a factor. > IDE has always been an exercise in compromises. EIDE has just hacked > on a lot of turbo-chargers and accelerators, making it much better at > competing with SCSI on the low end. However, even UltraIDE (or > whatever it's called) is still an exercise in compromises, cost being > the primary motivating factor (i.e. get the most performance possible, > while still keeping withing these cost-effective parameters). > Unfortunately, the extra quality and performance that SCSI can > potentially bring, commonly comes at a higher price. The annoying thing is that the price isn't that much higher. It's just because the volume market is (E)IDE that the prices difference is exaggerated. >> To me, the entire "SCSI rules" tone some people use reminds of Mac >> users, and I don't want think most people on this list wish for Bill >> Gates to want or need to bail out FreeBSD. :-) > > The difference is there are solid technical facts, and a large > high-end Unix workstation market, to back up SCSI's superiority. The > Mac on the other hand... :-) If technical superiority meant anything to the market, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970908114806.25653>