Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:25 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2004 at 12:13:20, Lars Bremer wrote: >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. We are talking two different numbers. I'm talking peak burst transfer from on-board cache to main memory. Not sustained data transfer rate for long reads. If you think your IDE drive is within 20% of a 15K scsi drive, we can run a benchmark to compare them. Every time I have done this, IDE simply gets blown out of the water... And it doesn't totally hang the system while the drives are busy either. > >>(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 :) I have 7 of them and they don't make much noise. The Case fans are far noisier. I can barely hear the drives. In fact, I don't notice any difference in the 15K drives and the older 10K drives, I have both side-by- side. > >>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? Latency _and_ transfer rate. 15K offers the best latency by a factor of 2. Transfer rate is next... U320 SCSI wins there as well. > >>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. I disagree, although I have not specifically tested that. But U320 disks are out-performing U160 disks in two machines I have sitting side by side. IE just doing a disk-to-disk copy of a large file... > >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.