🚀 go-pugleaf

>>     I've been reading the part of this thread to do with access
>>  rather than EIDE/SCSI in a somewhat bemused fashion.  Let's skip
>>  the parts that are to do with stand-alone systems (most of the
>>  posters are discussing servers), 

>I believe this is your mistake.  I thought we were talking client
>or stand'alone systems when we were discussing the lack of merit 
>of SCSI.  I don't believe anyone questioned SCSI's usefulness in 
>a server. 

Also, the thread basically started as a discussion over whether a hard
drive rated for 16MB/sec theoretical transfer rate would actually
achieve that kind of transfer rate under real-world conditions.
Naturally, the argument then turned to a discussion of whether
"real-world" meant contiguous block transfers, heavy random I/O, or
multiple simultaneous transfers.

>You haven't followed this discussion long then.  My argument is 
>that on a client workstation SCSI is useless, with one (as I 
>noted) or two exceptions.  On a server, SCSI is obvious because 
>of the multiple requests and drive optomization allowed.  Not all
>drives are created equal either. 

The problem with thise argument is that most people don't really need
serious disk performance (gasp!).  Whether it be EIDE or SCSI, slow
hard drives are perfectly acceptable on most workstations (the
garden-variety workstations that are suitable for EIDE) provided that
they are not AGONIZINGLY slow, so naturally, the cheap EIDE drives are
the better choice.

In spite of what some may suggest, this isn't really a discussion of
two technologies which are suited for different applications.  This is
a discussion of two technologies, one low-end and one high-end, where
the slower technology (and yes, it's slower) is suitable for most
people who don't need serious speed.

What's serious speed?  Ron Reaugh thinks that serious speed is a high
transfer rate irrespective of seek times, latencies, and all of the
multitasking optimizations in SCSI drives and controllers.  But the
problem with this argument is that any application which truly NEEDS
high disk performance is also going to be one of those "rare"
applications that needs SCSI's particular advantages, even on a client
workstation.  The rest of the garden-variety apps don't need SCSI's
particular advantages, but they don't even need high-end EIDE.

>Sure, this is a server.  This is not what was being discussed 
>(unless I cross-threaded things again).  Anyone who would argure 
>against SCSI (vs. IDE) for servers is nuts.  On the desktop 
>things reverse.

This argument has been continuing for some time now, and I would SORT
OF agree except to revise your distinctions to group high-end
workstations and servers together for SCSI suitability, and low-end
workstations for EIDE suitability.  EIDE's great for its design
purpose (low-end workstations), but the "ultimate wet dream
workstation" of every knowledgeable power user comes with SCSI
(probably a pair of Cheetahs on a DPT caching RAID controller), even
though it's not a server.

Is it NECESSARY for most people?  Of course not, but neither is a
300MHz CPU, or 128MB of SDRAM, or an 8MB video card.  That doesn't
change the fact that it's BETTER if you can afford it, even on a
single-user workstation (just like all of those things).  Let's face
it- for the "average workstation" that Ron Reaugh is talking about, an
obsolete P133 with 32MB of RAM, a 2MB video card, and a 2.5GB EIDE
hard disk is perfectly adequate.