|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I have built three machines for Win95 platforms earlier this year. I used
a Hot Shuttle 569 Motherboard and a Diamond Fireport 40 UW SCSI Card with
an IBM UW SCSI HD. I use the EIDE controller built into the motherboard
for CD players only since they are typically slow and benefit little from
SCSI with one notable exceptiion: my CD recorder and my ZIP drive.
At the time, I looked at a Pentium 2 as my preferred chip but the
additional cost did not justify it. I chose a Pentium 233 MMX. I came to
the realization that all of us rarely use the computing horsepower of the
current CPU chips. Performance issues are based largely upon a slow
peripheral interface: 33 - 66 mhz versus the speed of memory. I put my
money in the area where it could try to fix the problem -- in a higher
speed connection to the HD since every PROGRAM must access the HD. (With
the TS server, this is particularly true since accessing the database
almost always requires you to access the HD. ) I went from a 11-12 ns
EIDE drive to a 8.5 ns SCSI HD. In terms of access time, this is a 20%
performance boost that will be there with whatever the CPU chip. When Bus
speeds get to 100+ mhz we will see the next performance boost similar from
going from a 486 to a Pentium.
I have three CD player connected to the EIDE controller and have never had
a problem. The SCSI controller and HD were seamless to install and only
one interrupt for all those SCSI devices!!
Once you go to SCSI, you wont go back.
Any Comments for Hardware Geeks ?
Chuck Kaucher
>From: "JL" <fastgroup@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Personally I like SCSI more than IDE. I find it easier to setup, supports
>more devices and faster. I have had more problems with my IDE drives then
>my SCSI drives.
>
>SCSI is more expensive because of the added hardware on each device.
>Someone gave a good explanation of how SCSI is controlled. But with this
>extra hardware it makes the drives more efficient. For instance, if you
>compared an IDE and SCSI drive (theoretically running at the same transfer
>rate such as 20MB/sec) the SCSI drive would have a faster throughput.
>
>JL
>fastgroup@xxxxxxxxxx
> Manana is often the busiest day of the week.
> -Spanish Proverb
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Augustine <RonAug@xxxxxxxx>
>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 8:31 PM
>Subject: Re: SCSI vs IDE
>
>
>>
>>SCSI has a lot of problems working comfortably and efficiently in a
>>DOS/Windows environment but it is faster. Installing and integrating is
>not
>>trivial and --in my opinion-- not worth the aggravation. IDE is generally
>>sufficient for almost any set of normal applications and the Pentium II
>data
>>bus is 66Mhz (twice that of a regular Pentium), so that alone improves the
>>throughput.
>>
>>A case for SCSI could be made if you have a heavy-duty server application
>>with multiple hard-drives, but you better have a SCSI Geek on staff and
>>sleeping in the back room to keep the thing running.
>>_____________________________________
>>At 12:01 PM 7/24/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>Hi folks,
>>>
>>>Did anyone notice any significant improvement after switching to SCSI.
>>>
>>>Looks like DOS boxes were not meant for it, and we might have just another
>>>vulnerable link in terms of reliability and compatibility.
>>>
>>>This "graphics" stuff we use in TS is not that heavy duty from the long
>>>time DTP apps user point of view.
>>
>>
>>
|