Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:59:06 -0400 From: Michael Powell <nightrecon@verizon.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: to scsi or not to scsi Message-ID: <g42o3m$omq$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20080626092558.1a17d7d2@gom.home> <4863E58C.2060602@webrz.net> <g42jmq$8ec$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080627135934.U3211@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> The concept that SATA subsystems will tend to consume more CPU cycles >> because SCSI controllers > > untrue. SATA disk consumes really small amount of CPU under FreeBSD. even > if it's less than on SCSI controller it is still very little. > Uhmmmm, maybe read the _entire_ paragraph? "The concept that SATA subsystems will tend to consume more CPU cycles because SCSI controllers have onboard processors is somewhat nullified when considering controllers such as the Areca 1210 and the 3Ware type of products." Which means to say that with the advent of more modern approaches the current SATA controllers and hard drive subsystems consume less cycles than their early IDE predecessors. Whether or not the difference is now more or less than SCSI, the delta is probably small enough to be nearly negligible. What I was really trying to build up to was there exists other parameters on which to base decisions, a couple of which seem to get left out most discussions I've seen. OT - now I'm really not happy. Upgraded to KDE 4.1 Beta 2 and now finding more brokenness than either 4.0.4 or 4.1 B1. Add to the list Knode no longer has the ability to word wrap. Ughhhh!!! Upgrade to the newer, better, more feature-laden and watch stuff break. Just got to love "programeritus". Just how is it a Beta 2 can be *so* much worse than anything that went before... -Mike-
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?g42o3m$omq$1>