Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:32:14 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991211120959.96439B-100000@shell-3.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991210230453.046806e0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Brett Glass wrote: > At 10:45 PM 12/10/1999 , David Scheidt wrote: > > >Under light to moderate IO loads, the disk interface isn't likely to be the > >overall limiting factor on the machine. You certainly save some money by > >going with IDE. On a low-end box, perhaps as much as 15 or 20% of the total > >cost of the machine. Once you move away from the bottom end, or you want > >more than a couple disks, SCSI looks much better. > > Why wouldn't IDE retain an advantage -- so long as you put the disks on > separate controllers to avoid having one block another? (I like > SCSI too, but given the realities -- or unrealities -- of hard drive > pricing I'm always looking to milk more performance out of IDE drives > when I can.) For the highest level of performance, you really must have each disk on its own IDE channel. I don't have much experience with machines with lots of IDE disks. The most I have worked with is 4 IDE disks, with two on the onboard controller and two on a PCI card controller. The machine didn't seem to do as many IO transactions per second as a similiar machine with 4 LVD SCSI disks. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.991211120959.96439B-100000>