Subject: Re: SCSI
From: Adam Elkins (i-robot@gci.net)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 23:31:34 AKDT
Arthur Corliss wrote:
>>I know SCSI in the old days was faster than IDE, but I've lost
>>track....Is there still an advantage with SCSI? Now with IDE drives
>>having caches and all....Are SCSI still something to be had?
>>
>
>SCSI blows the doors off of IDE for the most part. Keep in mind that IDE, for
>all of the speed improvements, is still CPU intensive (bad CDR burns because
>of CPU utilisation is rare on SCSI compared to IDE). Also keep in mind that
>IDE drives are consumer-grade devices, and have no where near the MTBF of SCSI
>devices. Oh, and that silly IDE limitation of two devices per controller?
>
>The high end in SCSI has platter speeds of 15,000 RPMs (and has been available
>for a couple of years, now). IDE typically trails SCSI in the RPM race (and
>here, unlike MHz in CPUs, RPMs make a *huge* difference, especially for large
>block transfers where your cache is useless). As a side note, does anyone
>know what the fastest EIDE on the market is? Seems that market doesn't make
>that big a deal of it like they do for SCSI.
>
>If all you have in the machine is one drive, EIDE will work just fine in most
>cases (since there's no other devices to contend with on the bus). But once
>you start adding more devices, you'll get greater sustained throughput on SCSI.
>
>--
>
> --Arthur Corliss
> Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/
> Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/
> "Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
>
>
>---------
>To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
>with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>
>
I'd like to try SCSI out I think....or I might just hold off for
solid-state drives. No rpms needs...
Adam
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 23:31:28 AKDT