Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 08:33:04 -0600 (CST) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> Cc: will andrews <andrews@technologist.com>, Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991208082817.13951A-100000@shell-2.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpzovla51w.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 Dec 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > will andrews <andrews@technologist.com> writes: > > On 02-Dec-99 Doug Barton wrote: > > > Yeah, the new box I'm evaluating has SCA LVD SCSI, and it goes a > > > lot faster. I'm compiling -Stable and so far -j 6, 8 and 12 have all > > It _SHOULD_ go faster with SCSI as opposed to (E)IDE/UDMA/etc. > > Why, because "Scuzzy" is a cooler name than "Eye-dee-ee"? SCSI has > higher overhead than IDE, so for a single-disk system (or a two-disk > system, provided each is on a separate IDE bus), IDE wins (given > otherwise identical disks, of course). Sun claims this about the Ultra 5 workstation. The problem with this theory seems to be that "otherwise identical disks" don't seem to exist in IDE disks. The ultra 5's have been no end of trouble with their disks, at least until they get ultra-SCSI ones. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.991208082817.13951A-100000>