Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:34:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.Freenix.FR> To: gryphon@healer.com (Coranth Gryphon) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, jehamby@lightside.com, questions@freebsd.org, R.L.Hesketh@ukc.ac.uk, sos@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does FreeBSD suffer from the Intel RZ1000 IDE bug? Message-ID: <199509161634.SAA04654@keltia.Freenix.FR> In-Reply-To: <199509161357.JAA07352@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 16, 95 09:57:22 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It seems that Coranth Gryphon said: > But for a machine where you do not head real fast disk access, and > can live with a reasonable max of 2-3 Gig, SCSI can't compare to IDE for > a cheap fast solution. However, when you want to add a CD-ROM or a DAT or a scanner, you already have the controller so there is no incompatibilities to fear, nothing else to buy. SCSI is plug-and-play whereas IDE is not. IDE is getting better in term of performance (but that costs CPU) but doesn't come close for versatility. Last question, have you ever plugged an IDE disk on a Sun ? Or take an Exabyte from a station and hook it on your SCSI card ? Even for my personnal machine, I went to SCSI and I've never regretted it. > And on older (486) machines, a VLB IDE controller still gives better > performance (by observation, regardless of whether its technically possible). Take a Bt-545 VLB SCSI, you'll run circle around any IDE under BSD. For MS-DOG and Windoze apps, IDE may be enough but under any decent OS, SCSI is better. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- The daemon is FREE! -=- roberto@keltia.frmug.fr.net FreeBSD keltia.Freenix.FR 2.2-CURRENT #1: Sun Sep 10 18:50:19 MET DST 1995
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509161634.SAA04654>