Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:00:35 -0600 (MDT) From: John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CD writers - recommendations Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009271146100.28764-100000@inconnu.isu.edu> In-Reply-To: <xzpbsxagucz.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adaptec 1542 has a Z-80 onboard to share in the disk processing tasks, I'm betting that the better cards have beefier processors. I have never seen a GP processor on an IDE card. There's a coprocessor inherent in the SCSI spec, there isn't one in the IDE spec. Whether or not the last part about the hiccough is right, I know that burning a CD is datapipe intensive, and in an IDE that means that the datapipe may be compromised when multitasking, the same mulitasking has a slightly lesser chance of breaking the datapipe in SCSI, since the datapipe is actually controlloed off the main processor if everything goes as planned (which it hardly ever does). IDE was a stopgap until SCSI became cheaper: it never did, so now we have ATAPI and other bastardizations of the IDE spec, all of which share one trait: the processing is all focused on the main CPU, not an auxillary processor. On 27 Sep 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes: > > SCSI are better period. IDE does the processing on the main processor, > > while SCSI has its own to allow the main processor to hiccough a couple of > > times during the burn without ruining the burn (as much). > > Bollocks. > > DES > -- Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death. Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who! 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.LNX.4.21.0009271146100.28764-100000>