Article View: alt.comp.hardware
Article #3754Re: IDE VS. SCSI
From: Steven Wiser
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 00:41
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 00:41
30 lines
2942 bytes
2942 bytes
Dale You were right, I just did not understand it that way. Sorry. Steve On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 19:02:34 GMT, "Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White" <whiteda@home.com> wrote: > >Well, I believe that's what I said that, except I used the term multiple Process I/O >versus multi threading. Though I could be wrong, but UDMA does offer performance >gains in terms of multiple paths. Basically, if you have 2 EIDE controllers, like >most people do, then you should be able to access each controller independent of the >other. I've read in this group, but never confirmed it myself, that true DMA\UDMA >devices all act independent of each other. Which is where they make up some of their >performance on SCSI devices. > >Dale > >"Steven Wiser" <SLWISERR@erols.com> wrote in message >news:34a2pt4qcjol9mujmbiam5504frvnl0d9m@4ax.com... >> One more thing that I think may be important to this issue is that IDE >> is single threading in its response and SCSI is multi-threading. This >> is to say if you have more than one thread attempting to access the >> harddrive the SCSI will allow access to both threads to read the data >> while the IDE would have one thread completely locked out. Even more >> important when you have dual channels for the SCSI. >> >> Steve
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<s003ptcoovq5pmcsi4gef0hpjk5u8s437d@4ax.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mailReferences:
<cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com> <ebZj7.46083$hT4.12220041@news1.rdc1.md.home.com> <34a2pt4qcjol9mujmbiam5504frvnl0d9m@4ax.com> <ehak7.51868$hT4.12898999@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11632a,5f1c6849817fd5c2 X-Google-Attributes: gid11632a,public X-Google-Thread: 10a33e,5f1c6849817fd5c2 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a33e,public X-Google-Thread: 102b32,5f1c6849817fd5c2 X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public X-Google-Thread: fe411,5f1c6849817fd5c2 X-Google-Attributes: gidfe411,public X-Google-Thread: 10a2ed,5f1c6849817fd5c2 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a2ed,public X-Google-Thread: f5f89,5f1c6849817fd5c2 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5f89,public X-Google-Thread: f9a9a,ff658c4b0083bf70 X-Google-Attributes: gidf9a9a,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-01 17:44:02 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: Steven Wiser <SLWISERR@erols.com> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.os.linux.hardware,it.comp.hardware.motherboard,it.comp.hardware.scsi,it.comp.hardware.storage Subject: Re: IDE VS. SCSI Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 20:41:33 -0400 Lines: 30 Message-ID: <s003ptcoovq5pmcsi4gef0hpjk5u8s437d@4ax.com> References: <cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com> <ebZj7.46083$hT4.12220041@news1.rdc1.md.home.com> <34a2pt4qcjol9mujmbiam5504frvnl0d9m@4ax.com> <ehak7.51868$hT4.12898999@news1.rdc1.md.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZ1sL8ijXLcU6FChNFOuGb3n/k0f3Dd+ctQBq2avyhRKHSvkteWtGMF X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Sep 2001 00:43:10 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548