Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-xfer.netaxs.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: IDE vs SCSI (was Re: Linux vs BSD) Date: 23 Jan 1997 19:00:28 -0500 Organization: Panix Lines: 23 Message-ID: <5c8u2s$o3e@panix2.panix.com> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c155c$p6u@raven.eva.net> <87k9p4rckd.fsf_-_@murkwood.gaffaneys.com> <5c8a39$7tn@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:153995 comp.os.linux.setup:93695 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5717 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2009 In article <5c8a39$7tn@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Mark Hahn <hahn@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu> wrote: >: Peter Mutsaers <plm@xs4all.nl> writes: >: > Todays IDE drives are not much slower than SCSI drives > >this is true. I routinely sustain >6 MB/s on EIDE with mundane >motherboards and drives. that's with busmastering, of course, >so there's no significant CPU overhead. That's nonsense. Can you say "interrupt load"? Can you say "time to set up DMA transfer"? A good SCSI host adapter like a BusLogic MultiMaster or an Adaptec 2940 can sustain quite a bit more I/O throughput with much less CPU overhead than Intel's busmastering IDE controllers can. Of course, there's not any real reason you couldn't build a reasonable IDE controller (In fact, Dell used to build a RAID array of IDE disks that looked like an Adaptec 1540, IIRC) but what you're using isn't any such. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM Stumbling drunk in the railyard looking for God: http://www.panix.com/~tls/