Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:50:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> To: Atipa <freebsd@atipa.com> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, ggm@connect.com.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IDE vs SCSI was: flags 80ff works (like anybody doubted it) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970807224756.2073F-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970807225059.4717A-100000@dot.ishiboo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Atipa wrote: > > My thoughts exactly. Depending on the card and driver level, SCSI is > actually slower in many cases. Similar IDE drives outperformed SCSIs > unsing a 2940UW w/ 2.1.5-RELEASE. 2.2 kernels and above have noticably > faster Adaptec drivers. Haven't played much with the NCR, but I > think I heard the ncr.c does not support ultra or ultra-wide. True? My AHA-1542 with a Quantum Lightning was glacial, the oldish WD 212mb hdd I had out preformed it easily. > I definitely recommend IDE for workstations and medium demand servers. > However, SCSI will still have its market. When expandability and performance > are key, SCSI is the only solution (for now!). Maybe fibre-channel will > start to get more popular... No way. Any server is usually mission critical, and parity checking is a MUST for anything near mission critical. IDE doesn't do that. IMO a big no no. That and from what I've heard scsi outpreforms ide with multiple commands and the like, a simple dd if=/dev/zero won't show this at all. > Kevin - alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970807224756.2073F-100000>