Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:35:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@luke.cpl.net> To: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net> Cc: "Paul T. Root" <proot@horton.iaces.com>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCSI-II vs Ultra-SCSI Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970326143416.3561B-100000@luke.cpl.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970326172507.27209F-100000@zen.cypher.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > performance than the 1542B. I have a Gigabyte MB with Triton II with > > the 2 EIDE controllers. > > > > this is the usual argument against scsi, but it is simply wrong. they > key to scsi is that the controller and devices are intelligent. they > handle a lot of the I/O processing on their own *without* CPU > intervention. EIDE requires CPU assistance for just about everything. > if you have a lot of I/O on your machine, performance will suffer because > the CPU will be handling so many of the EIDE interrupts. Isnt that only true of Busmaster SCSI controllers? There are PIO SCSI controllers, although im not sure if that one is. (Note I am not saying he should use IDE, by any means. Just get a better controller. :) )
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970326143416.3561B-100000>