From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed Jul 28 9:12:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from assurance.rstcorp.com (assurance.rstcorp.com [216.112.242.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C899154A9 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vshah@rstcorp.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by assurance.rstcorp.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA27633; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 06:44:51 -0400 Received: from proxy.rstcorp.com(216.112.242.5) by assurance.rstcorp.com via smap (V2.0) id xma027630; Mon, 26 Jul 99 10:44:01 GMT Received: from jabberwock.rstcorp.com (jabberwock.rstcorp.com [192.168.2.98]) by sandbox.rstcorp.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA28271; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 07:41:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Viren Shah Received: (from vshah@localhost) by jabberwock.rstcorp.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) id HAA74503; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 07:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 07:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907261142.HAA74503@jabberwock.rstcorp.com> To: hardware@freebsd.org, richard@pegasus.com Subject: Re: 3.2-stable SCSI caching controller? Cc: viren@viren.org In-Reply-To: <199907240121.PAA19041@pegasus.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >} >} We currently have a 2.2.6-BETA NFS server which we are >} planning to upgrade to 3.2-stable. >} >} We are looking for a caching SCSI controller (currently >} it uses the onboard 7880 wide controller). [...] > >Why? > Mainly because it is an NFS server, and my belief is that the more that the controller caches, the faster (hopefully) the servers I/O performance should be. Am I mistaken in this? If so, I would like to know why this doesn't hold true. >Sticking with mainstream hardware, wherever possible, is a very >good idea when dealing with pc-Unix. Well, DPT seems mainstream enough (at least in the FreeBSD community). Thanks Viren -- viren@viren.org viren@rstcorp.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message