Mail Archives: opendos/1997/09/17/09:21:15
-= ArkanoiD =- wrote:
>
> a) Not twice,just ~+20%. b) There is _significant_ improvement over EIDE..
> It saves CPU cycles - and when it comes to swap.. I have a EIDE linux machine -
> it looks terrible being compared with nearly similar SCSI one. I get load
> level ~3 on first one and ~1.1 on second with the same conditions.
I guess I'm biased - compared to a DEC AlphaStation with 166 MHz processor,
running OSF/1, my PC with a P166 and EIDE drive goes goes like lightning
anyway.
(Prices I've seen for SCSI, you're paying a large amount for the controller
plus the 20% or so extra for the disk, which makes the combined price near
double that of an EIDE drive. Locally I can get a 4.3Mb EIDE for under DM500,
a SCSI equivalent is around DM650 and the controller around DM400. It's
twice the price to me; if I had a SCSI controller already it would be nearer
your 20% figure).
> ..and.. 7 is more than 2 (or 14 is more than 4).
Sorry, I miss the referrent. I'll agree with the numeric comparisons
(since I don't run an early-model Pentium!), but why?
> and SCSI is not just a disk subsystem,it is general purpose peripherial
> interface. And it exists beyond PC world.
Being non-PC is irrelevant to me, I don't expect to use my peripherals
with anything else. I haven't seen any peripherals I want with only
SCSI interfaces recently (almost all CD and writable CD devices are IDE
now), and those I would like are far beyond my budget (the big tape
streamers, for instance).
Chris C
- Raw text -