Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:39:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass) Cc: dscheidt@enteract.com, noslenj@swbell.net, tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <199912140040.RAA27620@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991210230453.046806e0@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Dec 10, 99 11:06:47 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Under light to moderate IO loads, the disk interface isn't likely to be the > >overall limiting factor on the machine. You certainly save some money by > >going with IDE. On a low-end box, perhaps as much as 15 or 20% of the total > >cost of the machine. Once you move away from the bottom end, or you want > >more than a couple disks, SCSI looks much better. > > Why wouldn't IDE retain an advantage -- so long as you put the disks on > separate controllers to avoid having one block another? (I like > SCSI too, but given the realities -- or unrealities -- of hard drive > pricing I'm always looking to milk more performance out of IDE drives > when I can.) I will let you in on a "secret": SCSI drives cost more because that's what the market will bear, based on their performance characteristics relative to IDE. They cost the same to manufacture; it doesn't matter what mask you use to burn your 1 square inch ASIC. FWIW: IBM has demonstrated IDE hardware with tagged command queues, but is not manufacturing it (so far as I have been able to tell). The only other remaining thorn in IDE is the need to add more controllers after you have two disks installed; SCSI has it rather well beat there. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199912140040.RAA27620>