and dont forget the companys bottom line, your job is to save money, so save money buying IDE drives 8D
--- John Karns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > Hi > > > > > > From: Julius Szelagiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > also, i was mistaken when i said that only > the memory size was wrong > > > > > with system. the processor is inadequate > too: Intel Pentium 4 > > > > > processor 2.4GHz with 512K enhanced cache. > it would be better to have > > > > > 2 1.3GHz piii processors, or at least one > xeon xp, or p4 3.06 with > > > > > multipath capabilty. > > > > > > > > Have you tried a dual Athlon box ? About $1k > will do motherboard, dual > > > > 2100+ processors, case and associated stuff. > If you choose a > > > > motherboard with quad memory slots, you can > buy 4* the cheaper 1GB. > > > > In my experience, that'll outperform a single > P4 processor handily. > > > > Adding a gigabit card for the client side > interface isn't much either. > > > > > > I'm a strong advocate for SCSI for multi-user > systems. GB for GB it's > > > more expensive, so I tend to use slightly older, > smaller capacity drives. > > > Although IDE has largely caught up in terms of > i/o bw, the SCSI command > > > queuing advantage has yet to be matched, making > for much smoother > > > server performance. Of course also off-loads a > lot of the disk i/o burden > > > from the CPU, so it's like having a faster CPU. > > > > I'm looking for info, not a flame war! > > <jaw drops> ?? Then why are you making a > pre-emptive strike? I'm just > stating opinions based on my experiences. Take them > with a grain of salt. > The thought of starting a flame war hadn't been > further from my mind. > > > > In my experience SCSI offers no advantages. > > My bus-mastering IDE does a sustained 40M/sec (1G > files) > > As I attempted to say, but probably not as clearly > as I had intended, with > the current generation of hd's the difference in > throughput has diminshed > or perhaps vanished. The difference lies in the > SCSI command queuing > off-loading the CPU. > > My most recent experience in comparing the two disk > types was about 3 yrs > ago, with a PII-350, running novell emulation for a > lab of 20 mostly 386 > machines booting from floppy, running W31 / > MS-Office on a 10b2 LAN - > definitely low budget. A single Linux box replaced > 2 Novell 3.11 boxes. > I first tried an IDE (the mobo probably wasn't > equipped with anything > above ATA-33, if that), and net performance was so > slow as to be > unworkable - there was a one or two second pause > after each keystroke in > MS-Word as the temp file would get updated, and > connections timing out. > After switching to SCSI switched to SCSI, it became > a workable system. > > > > Subjective experience, and iozone benchmarks show > little advantage of one > > or the other (SCSI-Box: Compaq ProLiant UW SCSI vs > no-name Athelon both > > around 1GHz). (compaq is *NOISY*) > > > > Install RH from CD is about the same time. > > > > Where does the SCSI advantage show (I/O benchmarks > are on a busy server) > > > > Also 'older' discs are slow, so double negative > advantage. > > (Older expensive baracuda multimedia seagate discs > managed 10M/sec sustained) > > I think that most of the gains in throughput are > attributable to increases > in data density on the drives more than any other > single factor. But I > tried to make the point that the advantage lies in > multitasking > capability, not throughput. So I would deduce that > the advantage would be > more apparent on a multi-user system than on a > single user system. > > ================================================================ > A quick and dirty test via hdparm on my home system > yields the following > results: > > 80 GB ATA-100 > > # hdparm -t /dev/hdc > /dev/hdc: > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.98 seconds > = 32.32 MB/sec > > ---------------------- > > 9.1 GB SCSI Ultra wide (U160) > > # hdparm -t /dev/sda > /dev/sda: > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.31 seconds > = 27.71 MB/sec > > A quick calculation shows that the ATA disk with 8.8 > times (i.e., 880%) > the data density yields a throughput improvement of > 16%. > ================================================================ > > All that said, perhaps it's time to try an ATA-100 > in one of the boxes > with a currently available mobo to see what kind of > performance > differences there are with the current hardware. I > hope I'll find that I > can justify dropping SCSI, and saving the added > expense. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > John Karns > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = > Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _____________________________________________________________________ > Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or > change prefs, goto: > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss > For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
