Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 19:18:29 -0500 (EST) From: John Capo <jc@irbs.com> To: ctassell@isn.net Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SCSI vs EIDE Message-ID: <199512130018.TAA20346@irbs.irbs.com> In-Reply-To: <199512121028.GAA15284@phoenix.isn.net> from "Charles Tassell" at Dec 12, 95 05:10:59 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Tassell writes: > > I'm setting up an ISP for a guy who REALLY wants to use EIDE 4 drives > (transfer rate around 12 meg/s I think he said) Now considering the fact that > all PCI boards come with build in EIDE controllers in them, why is everyone so > big on SCSI? > > I'd personally rather use SCSI myself, just because I have doubts as to > whether or not EIDE is really as stable as they say, but I may be outvoted in > this. Can anyone out there come up with some convincing arguments why to go > SCSI? BTW: The machine is going to be an all-in one server: news, mail, WWW, > DNS, terminal server (yey! this wont crash often <S>) And, we might run BSD > instead of FreeBSD. > I am not at all familiar with EIDE. Perhaps it has some of these SCSI features. 1) Overlapped I/O. I/O requests outstanding on all targets at the the same time. 2) BUS mastering DMA. Minimal computes needed to move the bits. 3) 7 disks/tapes per bus. 4) Trivial to add large capacity DAT drives. 5) Automatic bad sector remapping. 6) Tagged queueing. Multiple I/O requests outstanding to each target. 7) Wide SCSI is really fast. 8) Better support for SCSI in most if not all *nixes. If they insist on one machine, make sure it has /plenty/ of memory. John Capo jc@irbs.com IRBS Engineering High performance FreeBSD systems (305) 792-9551 Unix/Internet Consulting - ISP Solutions
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512130018.TAA20346>