Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!swidir.switch.ch!01-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!news.iif.hu!isyshu!hole.news.pipex.net!pipex!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!news.nl.innet.net!INnl.net!hunter.premier.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.inc.net!cs.uwp.edu!nelson From: nelson@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Do the 'zip accelerator' cards work as scsi adaptors? Date: 26 Jul 1996 20:58:45 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin - Parkside Lines: 38 Message-ID: <4tbbi5$g91@news.inc.net> References: <4t7v0p$pmk@news.inc.net> <kientzleDv62FJ.I3C@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.210.1.4 In article <kientzleDv62FJ.I3C@netcom.com>, <kientzle@netcom.com> wrote: >Note that there has been discussion of a new parallel port driver for >the ZIP drive, and you can buy parallel port cards for about $20. >That may also be an option for you. As for speed, my SCSI ZIP has >never been phenomenally fast (I get about 100k/sec transfer rate), and >I'm not certain the parallel ones are any slower. It's still a lot >faster than floppies, though. I do own a parallel zip drive, but what made me want to buy the scsi is that (as of yet) the parallel driver is mutually excusive with printer suport, which is too high of a price to pay. So i decided to also get the scsi zip. I bought it with the zip scsi (adaptec 1520) card. However, i have been abysmally disappointed with its performance. You comment that in your own experience, youre getting 6 megs per minute. What strikes me as slightly odd is that even under dos, im getting 4.6 megs per minute throughput. When you compare that to the parallel version, which gets 4.5 megs per minute on a generic "el cheapo" parallel port, i begin to wonder why the scsi version is not marginally faster. To put into numbers what i mean, here are some simple tests i ran: Test: Copy Ultimate Doom (13.5 megs) from zip drive to conner 1.6 hd. HD to HD -- 12 seconds (about 60 megs per minute) Zip Parallel to HD -- 2:53 (about 4.5 megs per minute) Zip SCSI to HD -- 2:48 (about 4.6 megs per minute) Is that accurate? Its really disappointing to me if thats all that i can hope for out of it -- ill probably return it if thats the max. As a consumer gripe, it really peeves me that they offer on the box as the example of performance "Up to 20 megs per mintue" for parallel, and "up to 60 meg per minute" for scsi, when its apparant that neither drive is capable of anywhere close to that. Thanks. Jeremy