Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Dec 1998 16:23:39 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Dumb question: Which is "better" SCSI or IDE disks? |
| |
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Leonard Zhang System Administrator ISD RVIB wrote:
> 1. Some hard disk manufactures are using same disk drive > (physically) to make SCSI and ATA. They only change the PCB board.
And together with that they change the cache and add far superior firmware than the crap they put on the IDE disk.
> 2. SCSI-1 and SCSI-2 have 8 bit data bus, while ATA have 16 bit data > bus.
Irrellevant and not always true. SCSI utilizes the bus much more efficiently (disconnect/reconnect) so the effective bandwidth is usually more with SCSI.
> 3. ATA got disk cache built in as well.
But it is usually far less cache and ATA doesn't provide the logic infrastructure to actually use it in an intelligent way (although IDE write caching has improved things a little bit). You lose another data point for the fact that IDE cache firmware often is almost braindead.
> 4. Some low end of SCSI host card is only 8 Bit card.
Some low end IDE drives are slow -- what's your point?
We are comparing the equipment of TODAY. It would be total nonsense to compare IDE stuff from today with 1991's SCSI controllers...
The way you are comparing IDE and SCSI is just too biassed to be taken seriously -- please make a more balanced judgement next time...
regards,
Rik -- the flu hits, the flu hits, the flu hits -- MORE +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |