[lkml]   [1997]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: SCSI disks
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Many professional Programmers, Engineers, and others who use
> PCs continually in their work, insist upon having SCSI disks
> in their machines. This does not mean that they are right. bring in another perspective, my machine has two IDE's, but after
running out of that avenue of expanding, I was finally forced to get an
SCSI drive. The result? Not only does the SCSI drive always demonstrate
considerable lower transfer & seek rates than either of the IDE drives,
but according to kernel profile dump the SCSI drive is also, when used,
eating up remarkable portion of the machine time. Ofcourse I'm using
relatively small SCSI drive and non-busmastering SCSI interface.
Unfortunately I can't come up with exact statistics and model codes as I
don't have them here with you, but this is just to throw in the reminder
that other things than "SCSI vs. IDE" matter - perhaps even more so.
There's good and there's bad hardware out there, on both arcitechtures.
(And to tie it even marginalyl to one of the lists I'm posting to, I
suspect the Linux adaptec-drivers are also partially to bleme for this;)
The getphase() thingy is a real sucker in terms of CPU...


Time to Face the World, Let Brothers Never Fight.
Forever Forge Ahead, and Keep the Dream in Sight.
For Those Who Never Try - They Are Sure to Fail.
The Heart's a Righteous Wind, That Comes to Fill the Sail.
-Manowar (King/Louder Than Hell)

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.105 / U:4.232 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site