Is any one know some who can translat Mentor file fo Cadence.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Daggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE & IBM Deathstars (was Protel vs. DirectCD)

What kind of card was it?  You cant really blame the SCSI interface itself
you were using an cheap/unsupported device.  Just as in any computer
hardware... its all worthless without good drivers.  Most OS's have innate
and very good driver support for the standard and popular SCSI cards on the
market (Adaptec families, etc).  Getting a scanner to work with a $10
controller card is another story.  If you bought the bottom-of-the-line
from KIA and it broke down you wouldn't draw the conclusion "cars suck"

But there is no point in continuing this thread really... I'm sure everyone
could chime in with their $0.02 about their experience with every drive
model/make/interface since they ever had a computer.  Again, the initial
thread was that slow I/O and CPU overhead due to a particular storage
interface COULD have been one of the reasons certain list members couldn't
complete CD burns without babying their machines or at all.

There are significant hardware improvements in SCSI disks other than just a
faster spindle speed.  The materials used in the platters are much more
advanced to minimized bad sectors and the servos on the heads are faster and
more precise for continuous sustained read/seek performance.  Not to mention
all of the on-board logic to implement better data prefetch and location
prediction.  Increased MTBF and 100% duty cycles.  The disks are made to hit
two points within the professional and enterprise community: known
reliability and high performance.  IDE disks on the other had while
many of the same technical upgrades through the years as SCSI technology are
made to provide the consumer market with: large storage density and cheap
price.  Even as the quality of the disks themselves increase there will
always be the CPU hit due to the fact that IDE cannot multitask.

To each his own... if you don't want to pay more for hard drives, then
If you are pleased with your IDE reliability through the years, then keep
using them.  If you don't think there could possibly be any improvement in
SCSI disks than IDE to warrant the higher price tag then continue to think
that way.  But there are clear cut technological and application differences
for each of the storage technologies to meet a particular

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:33 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE & IBM Deathstars (was Protel vs.

without disputing any of your assertions which may be entirely
correct, my personal experience has been different

every scsi drive i ever had died on me (4 or 5 of them, different eras
and makers)
i have never had an IDE die (knock on wood)
also there is another layer to scsi which has given me trouble, the
controller/driver layer which are more complex than IDE

on various systems at various times with various controllers sometimes
it was a hope and a prayer that it would boot on first try

at one point i got a scsi scanner (HP)
it wouldn't run on my scsi system (built by MICRON for $5K)

it insisted on ONLY running on the crappy scsi controller they packaged
with it
after plugging that in i got it running, but there were still issues ...

scsi did allow me to pile a bunch of drives in one box achieving more
storage than i otherwise could have gotten, but that is all moot now for
many (most?) of us

Dennis Saputelli

Matt Daggett wrote:
> Its very noticeable... especially if you have any kind of disk caching.
> anytime you do anything I/O intensive you are taking a CPU hit which slows
> performance.  SCSI is intended for servers and high end workstations where
> IDE is more suited for the home PC user who is using AOL and Word.  IDE
> a great price for large cheap storage but its hardly a reliability or
> performance solution.
> Also, I hope you have good luck with your new DEATHstar.  To prove a point
> about the unreliability of IDE drives you should look into the ongoing
> class action law suit against IBM over its Deskstar line of drives.  Disks
> failing at abnormally high rates and IBM turning the blind eye.  Most
> have reported having a disk fail and then that replacement fail and the
> replacement for that failing.  Something like that would be unheard of in
> SCSI realm due to just plain higher quality drives.
> Another thing you should be aware of is that if you look in the IBM
> documentation the deskstar is described as having "recommended power-on
> hours" of 333 per month--about 11 hours a day.  Drive reliability is
> typically measured with the assumption that the drive is on 60 percent of
> time--somewhat higher than 46 percent of the time that 333 hours a month
> would mean. On laptops, the standard duty is 40 percent, and on servers,
> which usually use SCSI drives, it is 100 percent.  So even in the
> manufacturer's documentation they don't consider the drive to be used for
> constant duty cycle.  That's plain unacceptable for a work/development
> environment.
> So to answer your question..."why would I pay 3 times as much for SCSI as
> would with ATA100"... higher throughput performance, half the access time,
> 4-8X larger caches with prefetch algorithms, and 4-5X the MTBF.
> How much is your data and productivity worth to you?  Is it worth saving
> extra $1-300 bucks?
> matt
> PS: Below is a link to a benchmark of a $200 Fujitsu disk in my system as
> compared to all flavors of IDE.  The results speak for themselves.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:20 PM
> To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD
> It may be fast, but it is useable or noticeable in a workstation??
> Probably not. I've been watching my harddisk like, and it rarely blinks.
> That tell me my system doesn't spend much time chugging on the disk and
> therefore why would I pay 3 times as much for SCSI as I would with
> ATA100? I just bought an 80GB IBM deskstar drive for $90 to my door.
> I looked at the media transfer rate and the sustained rate of a IBM
> Ultrastar Ultra160SCSI drive (at 10k RPM) and Deskstar 120 ATA100 drive
> (at 7200 RPM) and the rate between the two isn't enough for me to
> justify triple the cost. (And the fact you need a controller card that
> is roughly another $100.
>                         Ultra160SCSI            ATA100
> Media rate:             373 to 690 Mbits/s      592(max) Mbits/s
> Sustained rate: 29 to 57 MB/s           23 to 48MB/s
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 10:47 AM
> > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD
> >
> >
> > You should invest in SCSI I/O if you have a lot of throughput
> > problems to cause buffer underruns.  I can defrag a partition
> > while burning from the other without underrun issues and
> > without burnproof.  Most of the problems arise with all IDE
> > based systems that use 100% CPU to burn CDs and MUST use
> > burnproof or else you get a coaster.  With a SCSI based
> > system you'd see about a 1-2% CPU hit while burning.  I have
> > a 200Mhz Pentium Pro machine that I used to use to duplicate
> > CDs that can copy a CD to five burners at 8X at once w/o any
> > underrun issues.  IDE couldn't even dream of that...
> >
> > I cant really stress enough how important I/O is to system
> > performance independent of CPU and memory size.  A single
> > Ultra160 15K disk will outperform two ATA100 disks in a RIAD
> > 0 stripe.  Also when putting a SCSI disk under full
> > throughput stress it doesn't use 100% of the CPU like all IDE
> > based systems.  Not to mention the reliability and increased
> > cache sizes you get with most server-class SCSI disk.  SCSI
> > disks have no where near the high failure rates of IDE disks
> > because you are buying a enterprise solution. Prices have
> > really come down as well.. you can get a 73GB 10k RPM
> > Ultra160 disk for about $320 now...that's really cheap!
> >
> > Anyhow, back to Protel...
> >

* Tracking #: 54020BF22366C24E97E55EF502C78A77D0AA09C8
___________________________________________________________________________            Integrated Controls, Inc.
   tel: 415-647-0480                        2851 21st Street
      fax: 415-647-3003                        San Francisco, CA 94110

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to