On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 01:36:24PM -0400, David Clymer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 00:26, Nick Lidakis wrote: > > I was wondering the same and was about to post a similar message to the > > list. I feel as if my up-to-date Debian box (P4 3GHZ / Intel 875PBZ / 1 > > GIG RAM / WD ATA 133 Caviar SE) is somehow baing held back bit its on > > board controller and PATA hard disk, even though I have this disk > > optimized via hdparm. I feel the system to be jerky/slugish when opening > > up multiple applications at a time and when copying files. I was also > > hoping for fatser boot times via a SCSI system but always read > > conflicting reports regarding the pros of scsi on the desktop. > > Using SCSI will probably increase boot time rather than reduce it. You > will have to wait several seconds for your SCSI controller's ROM to load > and detect each attached device. The kernel takes a while to redetect > SCSI devices during bootup as well (this can be disabled, I think, but I > dont remember how. I never bothered.) This is true. Boot times are even longer if you configure the drives not to spin up until the controller tells them to to reduce the surge on the PSU at switch-on. But this is Linux, what's this booting thing? :-) > > To add more confusion to the mix, I can't seem to Google any documents > > regarding which SCSI contollers would be more appropriate for a Linux > > desktop system. > > > > So far, I think LSI's LSIU160 (around 30 dollars) might be a good > > candidate. I don't know whether I can partner this with a smallish u320 > > drive. If I can pick up a decent used U160 drive on eBay cheap, it > > might be worth the money to try out SCSI for myself. If anyting, SCSI is > > supposed to be more reliable in the long run. Adaptec are pretty trouble-free. I've also got an Intel RAID controller (not using the RAID) which is also supported. Initio are cheap but the last time I looked the 2.6 driver couldn't be compiled (works OK on 2.4 though). > > Any other comments form current Debian users with SCSI on their desktop > > boxes would be appreciated. > > I dont do SCSI anymore. Its cost/performance ratio is so high that it > really doesnt make sense for personal use. If its performance you're > after, buy several IDE drives and a few controllers if necessary and do > IDE raid0 or raid5. You can do this for the cost of a small (in > comparison) scsi drive + controller. > > If you buy old, used SCSI HDs or controllers, their reliability is > suspect. If you buy new SCSI controllers, the price is outrageous. I go round computer fairs and every now and then the dismantling of someone's big old servers makes itself known with various people selling SCSI stuff for reasonable prices. IME the drives fall into three categories: completely knackered, don't work at all; work, but have a large and growing number of defects; work, have zero to three defects and continue to work for years. I just make sure I get a receipt and can take the thing back if it's knackered. The work-but-with-defects category has been known to be awkward for this, but drives in this category are very rare. Controllers either work or don't, rarely don't, and continue to work for years. SCSI CD-ROM drives are rare, writers rarer, DVD almost non-existent, but with all your hard drives on SCSI you can leave these slow devices on the IDE bus and not have buffer under-runs. SCSI terminators are also rare so make sure at least one of your hard drives has one built-in - most do, some don't, and it's a pain when you only have one and it doesn't :-) > Summary: Buy new PATA/SATA stuff. Its less expensive to purchase/replace > and provides (for the most part) comparable performance. Summary: SCSI rocks! and buying it second-hand works if you're careful. -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x21C61F7F
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature