🚀 go-pugleaf

jake@binghamton wrote:

> The physical limit for transfer rate of today's HD is about 15mb/sec. No HD
> can sustain a rate higher than that.
> 33MB/sec of UDMA and 40MB/sec of UWSCSI are theoretical limits.
> Do your home work and don't brag your scsi here.
> It's a waste of money if not used as multitasking server.

    Are we a little hostile?    I don't have a degree in computer science, but
let me share what my impressions about SCSI are.  I will agree that most drives
(EIDE vs. SCSI) are fairly equal in real world performance.  However, I was
under the impression that since SCSI interfaces only use a fraction of the CPU
cycles that IDE interfaces use, SCSI devices are preferable when doing CPU
intensive operations, as the controller handles most of the work without the
CPU's help.  Me, I just like the fact that I can hook up to 32 devices to one
controller.  I'll never have that many, but, you never know.  8^>

> BTW, scsi cards usually are trouble makers.

  I don't know for sure about this, I have yet to see one fail.  Sure, you may
need to tinker, but that's what separates the men from the boys.  8^>  I don't
think this will be as much as a problem anymore as the clone BIOS are now
actually setup to recognize SCSI devices as being legitimate.  Operating
systems (I use the term lightly) like Windows95 and OS/2 have built in SCSI
drivers.  Other real OS's like Mac/OS and AmigaDOS were designed from the
beginning to use SCSI as the 'main' fixed disk interface.  They have very
little (none) trouble in this respect.

jason