[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: SCSI better than IDE?



on Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:16:23PM +0100, Christian Schnobrich (schnobs@babylon-kino.de) wrote:
> Hello,

> Now consider today's seek times of a few milliseconds combined with high
> transfer rates. Add the tendency to have RAM in abundance that's mostly
> used for buffering data.

> To enjoy the benefits of the SCSI disconnect feature one must have
> several disks in a box and much IO going on with all the disks at once,
> over a prolongated time. Think of a large and busy database. Very large
> and very busy. Not dozens, but hundreds of requests at once -- Google
> perhaps, or FedEx, or a Bank.
> 
> For single-user workstations, you would need very special needs to come
> up with a scenario where SCSI would provide a 'feelable' advantage.
> Certainly, you may from time to time point to your screen and say 'this
> process went faster because of SCSI', but doing so will likely waste
> more time than you just saved.

Nice essay.

Wearing my hat as a SAS programmer, I'm in just this situation
frequently.  I found that with Win2K (can't always get what you want),
on a newish 2.4 GHz system with lots (512 MiB+) of RAM, and a single,
fixed, 7200 RPM disk, system response slowed to a crawl running large
jobs.

Runtime dropped by half to a *tenth* on a slower (500 MHz) box running a
striped (RAID 0) array on three SCSI disks, for same job and data.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Geek for hire:  http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: