Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:51:19 -0400 (EDT) From: ADRIAN Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com> To: James Mansion <james@westongold.com> Cc: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net>, vanmaren@fast.cs.utah.edu, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG, kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: RE: hw platform Q - what's a good smp choice these days? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981007094419.4604A-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com> In-Reply-To: <32BABEF63EAED111B2C5204C4F4F502017F7@WGP01>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, James Mansion wrote: > Its all very well, but SCSI disks are a LOT more expensive than IDE > ones. > > Might be faster IO per drive with SCSI, but I'd rather have twice the > capacity and spend the remainder on more RAM. > > James Well, IDE tends to use significantly more CPU for IO than SCSI. Isn't that what does all the DMA work for IDE? If you have cycles to burn, why pay for an SMP configuration? I wouldn't recommend IDE on anything but a single user machine, because of the synchronous access to the drives. (Has the sycnhronous drive access been dropped from EIDE? I don't follow IDE developments much.) Adrian -- [ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.981007094419.4604A-100000>