From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 26 13:59:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07532 for current-outgoing; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.uniserve.com (tom@shell.uniserve.com [204.244.210.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07501 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (tom@localhost) by shell.uniserve.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10571; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:53:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.uniserve.com: tom owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:53:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" cc: Simon Shapiro , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IDE vs SCSI was: flags 80ff works (like anybody doubted it) In-Reply-To: <199708261857.LAA23349@MindBender.serv.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote: ... > I would think the disk subsystem would be the primary limiting factor > here. What mix of controllers and drives were these tests run on? > > It would also be interesting to run this simulation against a striped > set of SCSI drives. It would also be enlightening if you ran the same > test against your striped set of IDE drives. I'm sure this was done on a stripped drives, using the fastest known SCSI controller, and hardware cache. See "freebsd-scsi" archives. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@MindBender.serv.net > --< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >-- > NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3, > Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32... > NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others... > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tom