Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:08:08 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@narnia.plutotech.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SCSI vs. DMA33.. Message-ID: <199811111808.KAA04141@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:38:43 MST." <199811111538.IAA00103@narnia.plutotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> runs. I think that the testaments on this list and others about > the dramatic improvement CAM has made to the performance of high > load, random seek, workloads also shows the effectiveness of > overlapped I/O. The main reason CAM performs so well is the order > of magnitude increase in the number of concurrent, per-device, transactions > the system supports. Unfortunately, Simon's numbers tend to indicate that CAM doesn't provide the same order of magnitude improvement that the old SCSI subsystem did. At least it's a little more robust. 8) -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811111808.KAA04141>