🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <830802086snz@cdsl.demon.co.uk>
           peter@cdsl.demon.co.uk "Peter Hayward" writes:

>    I'm sorry if this is a duplicate but the original, posted on Sunday,
>    seems to be "one of the small number of news articles lost by demon".
> 
>    I own an ISA caching disk controller fitted with 4MB of 30 pin simms
>    (well what use are 30 pin simms these days?) but I'm thinking of
>    getting a new motherboard and CPU that is likely to have it's own on
>    board (E)IDE controller.  The question is:-
> 
>    Would I better off keeping my caching contoller or moving to the on
>    board (E)IDE?
> 
>    My gut feeling is that keeping the cache controller is the better
>    option.  I appreciate that the ISA card will have a much lower data
>    transfer rate, say 5 times slower than the on board controller.  But
>    the data transfer portion of a block read is modest compared with
>    rotational latencies and even more so with seek times.  It's in the
>    last two area's that the cache will show gains, but will that balance
>    out the lower transfer rate?
> 
>    Any comments?
> 
> --
> Peter Hayward, Cambridge, UK.      | In a democracy the public will only
> peter@cdsl.demon.co.uk             | respect laws if they respect the
> tel +44-1223-312-923               | politicians that make them.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Peter Hayward, Cambridge, UK.      | In a democracy the public will only
> peter@cdsl.demon.co.uk             | respect laws if they respect the
> tel +44-1223-312-923               | politicians that make them.
> 

-- 

 Michael S. Cowgill (Mike)        \_ "  ...Not even Wensleydale?...  "
 zeus@myth.demon.co.uk (That's me) \_        Royal Blue Dragon
 G1VOX@GB7WRG.GBR.EU 44.131.2.76    \_          -==(UDIC)==-