Article View: comp.arch
Article #21348AT bus & disks (was Re: 68020 vs. 68030 speed)
From: Rik Littlefield
Date: Thu, 18 May 1989 17:55
Date: Thu, 18 May 1989 17:55
14 lines
1179 bytes
1179 bytes
In article <4229@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > True, and known. But the problem is still the AT bus because, in general, > the bottleneck on UNIX tends to be disk. The typical huge disk buffers > help a lot, but it's still a problem. This seems to be arguing that the AT bus can't keep up with disk transfer rate, which I have trouble believing. I don't recall that the benchmark configurations were ever specified exactly. Could the observed differences in system performance be due to different disk interleaving, or even something as crude as disk seek or transfer speeds? Or perhaps some controller difference makes one of the drivers jump through more hoops? Blaming the bus seems a bit premature here. --Rik
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8263@june.cs.washington.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!rikReferences:
<954@aber-cs.UUCP> <4229@ficc.uu.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!rik From: rik@june.cs.washington.edu (Rik Littlefield) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: AT bus & disks (was Re: 68020 vs. 68030 speed) Message-ID: <8263@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: 18 May 89 17:55:29 GMT References: <954@aber-cs.UUCP> <4229@ficc.uu.net> Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Lines: 14