On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 08:37 +, Andrew Back wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Kyle Gordon wrote:
Caviar 80GB (Master) + DiamondMax 60 (slave) on the internal IDE controller
+
Deskstar 120GXP on a PCI Ultra100 TX2 card - giving 120GB
What configuration gives 120GB from 80 + 60?
Is it not multiples of the smallest drive? Like (n-1)x, n being number
of drives and x being the capacity of the smallest drive?
Am I wrong in thinking that the SCSI drives will be faster than the IDE
setup,
given their age? The DiamondMax is ATA66 whereas the Caviar and DeskStar are
ATA100, but the Quantums are Ultra160. The Quantums however, are older, and
the primary use of this will be ~, where random access will be preferred
over
sequential streaming.
It may not be the case any more given advances in IDE/ATA technology but
it certainly used to be that all other things being equal SCSI would win
where the workload was of a more random nature. It's bus protocol is
(was?) more advanced and allowed command queueing. The OS could send
a bunch of requests at the drive and it would be able to service them in
the order it saw fit based on where the heads where at. Whereas with IDE
everything was serialised and the drive would have to wait for the blocks
to pass the heads, service that request, and then take another request,
wait for the data to go by the heads and so on.. So SCSI made sense in
file servers and multiuser systems, and IDE in the likes of a video
editing workstation where access would be largely sequential.
Of course then you have to factor in drive the performance, cache and so
on. And overhead/benefits of disk configuration options - RAID*/JBOD.
There may be other benefits to SCSI I've missed, and I admittedly know
little if anything about modern ATA drives.
I think that settles it then... SCSI it is :-) They may be old, but
still more advanced. On the plus side, it frees up some drives for use
in other machines :-)
Cheers,
Kyle
___
Scottish mailing list
Scottish@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/scottish
