bug1 wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe the specs either, because they are for the "ideal" case.
> > However, I think that either your benchmark is flawed, or you've got a
> > crappy controller. I have a (I think) 5400 RPM 4.5GB IBM SCA SCSI drive in
> > a machine at home, and I can easily read at 7MB/sec from it under Solaris.
> > Linux is slower, but that's because of the drivers for the SCSI controller.
> > I haven't done any benchmarks on my IDE drives because I already know that
> > they're SLOW.
> > Greg
> >
>
> Whatever you think of the interface (ide vs scsi) you have to accept
> that a drives speed is dependent on its rotation speed.
Not entirely true. RPMs is but _one_ factor, not the determining factor.
>
> A 7200RPM IDE drive is faster than a 5400RPM SCSI drive and a 10000RPM
> SCSI drive is faster than a 7200RPM drive.
Not always true, if you are talking about data throughput and access
speed.
>
> If you have two 7200RPM drives, one scsi and one ide, each on there own
> channel, then they should be about the same speed.
>
> Multiple drives per channel give SCSI an edge purely because thats what
> the scsi bus was designed for. You pay a big dollars for this advantage
> though.
As well as various _other_ advantages, see otehr post.
--
In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are
usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.
-- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900
