Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 10:02:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "Doug S." <serges@umr.edu> To: jeffa@sybase.com (Jeff Anuszczyk) Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PC configuration advice wanted. Message-ID: <m0sxy09-0004N0C@nero.uucp> In-Reply-To: <9509271436.AA19399@paloverde.sybgate.sybase.com> from "Jeff Anuszczyk" at Sep 27, 95 10:36:05 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Okay, so why is this such a "Really Bad Idea". Opinions aside. > > Does FBSD have trouble with EIDE configurations? > > > > SCSI is nice, but its margin over EIDE isnt all that big. This is my > > opinion, anyway. > > I'm sure you received alot of feedback on this (it's sort of a religous > issue). However, here are some things to consider: Not yet. :) > 1) FreeBSD does not currently support EIDE so your big fast drive > will run as a standard IDE (read slow) drive. Very good point. If EIDE isnt supported under FBSD, then theres very little reason to argue its use over SCSI if the primary goal is to run FBSD. > 2) SCSI has among all of the advantages already listed (# of drives, > tapes, scanners, etc) the ability to issue multiple commands > to the drive simultaneously. With OS's like Windows this is not > much of an issue since it generally can't do this. However, in > a multiuser, multiprocess OS like FreeBSD it can and often does > do this. This ends up making a SCSI drive much faster since the > drive can reorder the requests into one pass of the disk heads. Agreed. SCSI is current much more flexible and currently, a more intelligent interface. > 3) SCSI is generic. IDE is pretty much a PC thing. In the future > SCSI devices will continue to work on PowerPC's, Macs, etc. Support > for E/IDE is not so concrete. Good point, however in my favour. The fact that (E)IDE is "pretty much a PC thing", makes its use more seamless and 'compatible' with PC architectures as compared to SCSI. How many SCSI implementations are there for the PC? Too many! This means incompatibility and loss of flexibility (which was I believe your second point) right out of the box. A good example of this is the fact that FBSDs hardware guide can say that it supports IDE controllers without listing each individual make and manufacturer as it has to do for SCSI. This is rather big point in favour of IDE (and hopefully, EIDE soon). And there are the other reasons like price and availability of the EIDE drives that make it a very good option for PCs. If the PC market had adopted a standard SCSI interface for the PC several years ago, then maybe my points would all be moot. Unlike, Apple and most workstation manufacturers, SCSI was left out of the loop of PC architecture. Instead, IDE was adopted. And EIDE is a closer step in the direction of a "standardized interface" for the PC arch. > Yes, SCSI does cost a bit more, however you get what you pay for. Yes, and if youre creating a solution to take advantage of *one* OS or application, then you *may* find a SCSI implementation that supports your hardware and software. However, if you (as many of us are) want to remain as standardized as is reasonable, to take advantage of various OSs, then (E)IDE is (currently) the *only* way to go. Just my humble $.02 Serge. serges@umr.edu > - Jeff > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0sxy09-0004N0C>