🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <815861245snz@myth.demon.co.uk> zeus@myth.demon.co.uk "Mike" writes:

>In article <815793083snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
>           David@longley.demon.co.uk "David Longley" writes:
>
>> What I *do* ned is a 4 GB SCSI-2 drive, but I'm not prepared to pay the
>> fortune they cost. If anyone has any advice in this area, please let me
>> know.
>
>Do they have to be SCSI-2? EIDE drives have a pretty high transfer rate now. 
>My 1.27G EIDE drive only cost 149gbp+vat. If it must be SCSI(-2,-3, fast, 
>wide, whatever) why not get 2*2.0G or 4*1.0G and use some RAID software to 
>produce a super-duper high bandwidth system. SCSI sounds over the top for this
>purpose.

I don't think so. Most SCSI controlers leave the CPU a lot of free cyles
( 80%ish ) during IO operations. Most IDE based technologies consume nearly
all of the CPU resource during IO.

Some multimedia apps work much better with SCSI even if the transfer rates
from the SCSI devices look slower on paper.


> Why not consider one of those new generation of re-writable optical 
>drives? 650MB per disk.

Because they'd be too slow for video capture at a guess ?

-- 
John Beardmore