Re: Which Sparc is best?
Hello
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Joshua Uziel wrote:
> The U5 and U10 are decent machines... moreso on the systems with the
> 2MB ecache (most of the U10s, and some of the U5s). One problem
> with those systems is that they have a CMD646U for an EIDE
> controller... a buggy chipset that Linux deals with poorly (mostly
> due to CMD's lack of desire to cooperate, I hear).
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> For what it's worth, my experience with Linux (Debian & SuSE) on an
> Ultra10 suggests that if you are going to stress the disk much at
> all, on such a system, you will want to use one of your expansion
> slots for a SCSI card. Others will have better information, though.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Craig Morehouse wrote:
> This makes much sense. I use SCSI on all the important Intel boxes.
FWIW, my Ultra5/IDE box experienced frequent disk troubles even when
it wasn't stressed much (desktop). It kept randomly changing
characters in files, leading to visible problems say once per 2-3
months[1]. When stressed more (mini-server for 4-5 people), the bug
visibility raised to about one per 2-3 weeks, and eventually led to an
unusable system. Both under Debian "pre-woody" and Solaris (I tested
Solaris in order to see whether it would improve, but nope -- my
impression was that it became even worse).
So, I think you would be probably better off with SCSI even for
desktops.
Tibor
Footnotes:
[1] Or faster, "almost" always, when untarring huge files.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: