Re: OT: SCSI better than IDE?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: OT: SCSI better than IDE?
- From: Paul Morgan <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 06:41:22 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20031229163952.GA21499@server.crasseux.com> <20031229185311.GL5200@rei.moonkingdom.net> <email@example.com> <20031229233823.GP5200@rei.moonkingdom.net> <20031229235204.GB16627@server.crasseux.com> <20031231215448.GM8091@ix.netcom.com>
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:54:48 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 06:52:04PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> Spoken like someone who's failed to grasp the concept of multiple
> simultaneous IOs.
There's also been some talk about the disadvantages of two IDE disks on
one channel. I'm running six disks on three channels on my home desktop,
but I don't have much of a problem with this. Example: One slave is my XP
installation and Linux backup space; another slave is XP and Linux backup
space. Neither of those are heavily used unless I'm running backups. I
have planned my partitoning and physical disk mapping to minimize
simultaneous operations on one channel.
My experience has been that, for a desktop, one can buy cheap IDE disks,
work around the channel sharing issue and get satisfactory throughput. As
with most things, it just takes a bit of thought and planning.
Programming without a hex editor is like watchmaking without a hammer.