Author: Lars Bremer
Date: 09:13:20 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2004 at 11:51:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 10, 2004 at 11:30:52, Lars Bremer wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>>I have to buy a new OS :-(( >> >>Win2k does support HT. It handles HT as two different physical processors. WinXP >>can handle these virtual processors. >> >>>The biggest wish is a good Service Pack for Windows NT4 (SP7) with USB, >Directx9 >>>and Hyperthreading support! That's all :-) >> >>It exists and is called Windows XP >> >>>BTW: >>>Bob do you think that SCSI is better as S-ATA (interesting for me if I used on >>>two harddisk 5-pieces for engine-engine matches with ponder = on on dual Xeon. >>>After my first test it seems that S-ATA is just great for tablebases. >> >>Lol, SATA-drives are exactly the same as PATA-drives, there are no differences. >>I count them twice, believe me. >>Normally there is only a special chip at the drive's board to convert parallel >>to serial. >> >>If you want to know which kind of drive is better to store and use tablebases, >>you should read CSS 4/03, where I compared some different hard drives under this >>point of view. >>15k-SCSI was the best, but it was not as fast as one could think, and modern >>ATA-drives are very fast too. > >SCSI drives offer far more than the IDE and IDE-followon SATA drives. > >(1) 320mb/sec burst transfers, double SATA, 2.5X IDE. You talking about the protocol, not about the drives. The fastest SCSI-drives can transfer around 75 MByte/sec, the fastest IDE-drives are close to 60 MByte/sec now. >(2) tagged command queueing tagged command queueing is *not* an SCSI-feature. IBMs IDE hard disk drives can do that since a lot of years. Unfortunatly there is no IDE-driver to handle this. :) >which offloads the "optimizing" stuff from the >I/O request handler and lets the SCSI controller handle multiple requests in >the best possible order, something a request handler can hardly do since disk >drives like to "lie" about their geometry due to various compensation zones. > >(3) run on a SCSI and IDE system side by side. Do something HUGE in terms of >I/O on both. The scsi system will feel perfectly normal. The IDE system >will basically "freeze". It depends. In a server system with a lot of small I/Os, may be. In your computerchess- and desktop-pc, nevermind. >There is little to recommend IDE or SATA except _price_. That is where its >only advantage is seen. So you must be deaf! I never want to have a 15k-SCSI under my desk :) >But I want performance. And for endgame tables, the >faster the better. So you did measure it? What is most important? latency, transfer rate, any other? >15K drives are great, U320 15K drives are even better. If you use only one drive there is no difference in speed between U160 and U320. ciao Lars
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.