From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Apr  2 21:13:02 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA11846
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:13:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA11826
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:12:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA04050; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:51:53 -0700
Message-Id: <199604030451.VAA04050@rover.village.org>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: HDD cpu usage (IDE vs. SCSI). 
Cc: koshy@india.hp.com (A JOSEPH KOSHY), hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:44:59 +0930
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 21:51:53 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I went scsi.  It was about $75 more than IDE three years ago when I
got my 250M drive.  I've been able to scape together all kinds of,
shall we say, interesting SCSI devices that just work.  My SCSI bus
has had on it about 10 different disks (some transient), a 7 cd
changer, a tape robot, three or four different tape drives, and a
plain old scsi cdplayer.  At the time there was no way that IDE could
even touch it.  While more expensive on the front end, it has more
than paid for itself in the long run for me.

Warner