Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:30:17 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2002 at 12:03:53, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >On November 15, 2002 at 09:55:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>HardDrive: 4 GB IDE(ATA-100)#1 inch 7.2 RPM Precision Workstation 530 >> >>If you use egtb's, I _hate_ EIDE drives. They are slow as christmas compared >>to good SCSI drives. Particularly ultra-320 15000RPM scsi drives. When you >>get an IDE disk busy, the entire machine runs dog slow. WIth SCSI, this >>doesn't happen at all.. > >This is generally true, but with modern EIDE the gap is really not that big, >unless you get a monster like a fiber-channel suited for an Oracle server. It is really a huge gap. Get on an EIDE machine and do a disk to disk copy and notice that the cpu just about hangs up. Do the same on a SCSI machine and you can't even tell it is going on... That is what I hate about EIDE... Current SCSI is 320mbytes/second. EIDE is way behind that. Not to mention the bus saturation problem I mentioned above... > >Does anybody have figures for a standard SCSI vs ATA-100 in terms of TB scan? > >regards >Franz Here is a sample: Using 15K scsi drives, it takes 4.5 seconds to scan for 3/4/5 piece files. USING an ATA100 machine, it takes 16.96 seconds... the sixes make this take forever, but for fun (I can only do sixes on a SCSI machine, I have no EIDE boxes with 6's on them): 11.8 seconds on scsi. This is all the 3-4-5-6 piece files on my ftp machine, tested on my quad xeon which is only 160mb SCSI, not 320...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.