Re: [OT] Re: SCSI network
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 14:45 +0200, User Wojtek wrote: > > May I ask how that works? Everything I've read about scsi is that the > > throughput determines the standard: so 320MB has a throughput of ~320MB. > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi) > > there is a bit (exactly 8 times) difference between megabit and megabyte > Ahh! I see now the reference in the footnote. I was under the impression that the data throughput was measured the same as the throughput for most other data interfaces (USB, Firewire, Ethernet, Serial, Parallel, etc...), hence my confusion. No wonder I've never been that impressed with scsi... Can anyone tell me why this break in convention? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [OT] Re: SCSI network
May I ask how that works? Everything I've read about scsi is that the throughput determines the standard: so 320MB has a throughput of ~320MB. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi) there is a bit (exactly 8 times) difference between megabit and megabyte ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[OT] Re: SCSI network
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 16:41 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> unmanaged switch will work much better :) > >> > > > > I'd agree with that 100%- do the bandwidth math (not to mention the ease > > of setup): gigabit each way compared to a max of 320mb (I could be wrong > > on the exact figures, but the gigabit is still faster). > > > 320MB is 2560Mb not 320Mb > > 160MB/s is above gigabit ethernet speed - half duplex, but when traffic > goes mostly one direction - it's not a problem. > Learn something new everyday... May I ask how that works? Everything I've read about scsi is that the throughput determines the standard: so 320MB has a throughput of ~320MB. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scsi) > > > Setup a small private network between the machines in question and > > everything would be happy. > > of course - but just asked as i have a bunch of unused U160 controllers > and cables. > Fair enough- I'd probably do the same. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
Perhaps on your motherboard, also possible they don't even make it farther than the pins of the controller chip. Lots of controllers have lots of ports that never get used. -Patrick On 31/03/2008, Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > with firewire - it works fine, i know :) - fwip(4) > > > > if talking about firewire, why on my system: > > fwohci0: mem > 0xf5005000-0xf50057ff,0xf500-0xf5003fff irq 18 at > device 6.0 on pci5 > fwohci0: OHCI version 1.10 (ROM=0) > fwohci0: No. of Isochronous channels is 4. > fwohci0: EUI64 00:c5:ba:74:00:00:1a:4d > fwohci0: Phy 1394a available S400, 3 ports. >^^ > fwohci0: Link S400, max_rec 2048 bytes. > firewire0: on fwohci0 > fwip0: on firewire0 > fwip0: Firewire address: 00:c5:ba:74:00:00:1a:4d @ 0xfffe, S400, > maxrec 2048 > sbp0: on firewire0 > fwohci0: Initiate bus reset > fwohci0: BUS reset > fwohci0: node_id=0xc800ffc0, gen=1, CYCLEMASTER mode > firewire0: 1 nodes, maxhop <= 0, cable IRM = 0 (me) > firewire0: bus manager 0 (me) > > > i have 1 port, while the driver says 3 ports. > > are 2 ports on motherboard, just lacking connectors? > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
with firewire - it works fine, i know :) - fwip(4) if talking about firewire, why on my system: fwohci0: mem 0xf5005000-0xf50057ff,0xf500-0xf5003fff irq 18 at device 6.0 on pci5 fwohci0: OHCI version 1.10 (ROM=0) fwohci0: No. of Isochronous channels is 4. fwohci0: EUI64 00:c5:ba:74:00:00:1a:4d fwohci0: Phy 1394a available S400, 3 ports. ^^ fwohci0: Link S400, max_rec 2048 bytes. firewire0: on fwohci0 fwip0: on firewire0 fwip0: Firewire address: 00:c5:ba:74:00:00:1a:4d @ 0xfffe, S400, maxrec 2048 sbp0: on firewire0 fwohci0: Initiate bus reset fwohci0: BUS reset fwohci0: node_id=0xc800ffc0, gen=1, CYCLEMASTER mode firewire0: 1 nodes, maxhop <= 0, cable IRM = 0 (me) firewire0: bus manager 0 (me) i have 1 port, while the driver says 3 ports. are 2 ports on motherboard, just lacking connectors? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
a cheap solution why don't you equip you PC's with FireWire cards? But ask once again - i asked because i already have these SCSI controllers and they are unused. with firewire - it works fine, i know :) - fwip(4) somebody about the limitations there (IMHO you can make some sort of bus connection, but worst case it would be one-to-one connections). i used only 1:1 connections for connecting 2 servers. worked fine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
On 31.03.2008, at 21:53, Walt Pawley wrote: On 3/29/08 1:17 PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote on SCSI network they are all adaptec (ahc driver) controllers - manual says it can be target as well as initiator Others have been discussing the potential speed of such an arrangement. I'm more concerned about SCSI bus addressing being a problem. Perhaps the statement above means that each card can have a distinct ID on the bus. My experience with SCSI is pretty much limited to systems where the host computer is hardwired as device 0. If these cards are like that, they'll likely be pretty confused about who's who. Usually you should be able to change the Host-ID (which is 7 per default), but the real issue with SCSI is, that there is always an "initiator" which connects to a "target", although this can change (as you state) its not as easy as opening an other network port. Think of it as usb, you cannot hook 2 PC's together without some special device in between (ok SCSI is a bit more flexible tough). The only things that popped up on google were pretty much outdated (around 1998), so this will not really help you. It looks like the guys played with this to overcome the fast- ethernet limit. If you really need something fast, grab some used FC switches (Brocade) with GBIC's equipped and some cheap HBA's (e.g. emulex or qlogic). In this scenario you can run FC-IP which works well. There you can choose between 1/2/4G per sec depending on the money you want to spend (4G is way off limits!) Personally I think this is a little overkill, although nice to play with. :-) If you need a cheap solution why don't you equip you PC's with FireWire cards? But ask somebody about the limitations there (IMHO you can make some sort of bus connection, but worst case it would be one-to-one connections). br, Robert ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
On 3/29/08 1:17 PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote on SCSI network >they are all adaptec (ahc driver) controllers - manual says it can be >target as well as initiator Others have been discussing the potential speed of such an arrangement. I'm more concerned about SCSI bus addressing being a problem. Perhaps the statement above means that each card can have a distinct ID on the bus. My experience with SCSI is pretty much limited to systems where the host computer is hardwired as device 0. If these cards are like that, they'll likely be pretty confused about who's who. -- Walter M. Pawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wump Research & Company 676 River Bend Road, Roseburg, OR 97470 541-672-8975 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
unmanaged switch will work much better :) I'd agree with that 100%- do the bandwidth math (not to mention the ease of setup): gigabit each way compared to a max of 320mb (I could be wrong on the exact figures, but the gigabit is still faster). 320MB is 2560Mb not 320Mb 160MB/s is above gigabit ethernet speed - half duplex, but when traffic goes mostly one direction - it's not a problem. Setup a small private network between the machines in question and everything would be happy. of course - but just asked as i have a bunch of unused U160 controllers and cables. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 22:34 -0500, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Mar 29), Wojciech Puchar said: > > i have few Ultra160 SCSI controllers and two Ultra40, cables and few > > machines that needs fast interconnect. i could use one gigabit card on each > > machine+switch, but i already have it! > > > > can i make external SCSI bus through all machines and use it to transmit IP > > packets? > > > > they are all adaptec (ahc driver) controllers - manual says it can be > > target as well as initiator > > I've never seen a SCSI IP implementation, but I guess it's > theoretically possible. Since SCSI uses a shared bus, though, the best > you could get would be a half-duplex network. Gigabit NICs and a cheap > unmanaged switch will work much better :) > I'd agree with that 100%- do the bandwidth math (not to mention the ease of setup): gigabit each way compared to a max of 320mb (I could be wrong on the exact figures, but the gigabit is still faster). Setup a small private network between the machines in question and everything would be happy. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: SCSI network
In the last episode (Mar 29), Wojciech Puchar said: > i have few Ultra160 SCSI controllers and two Ultra40, cables and few > machines that needs fast interconnect. i could use one gigabit card on each > machine+switch, but i already have it! > > can i make external SCSI bus through all machines and use it to transmit IP > packets? > > they are all adaptec (ahc driver) controllers - manual says it can be > target as well as initiator I've never seen a SCSI IP implementation, but I guess it's theoretically possible. Since SCSI uses a shared bus, though, the best you could get would be a half-duplex network. Gigabit NICs and a cheap unmanaged switch will work much better :) -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
SCSI network
i have few Ultra160 SCSI controllers and two Ultra40, cables and few machines that needs fast interconnect. i could use one gigabit card on each machine+switch, but i already have it! can i make external SCSI bus through all machines and use it to transmit IP packets? they are all adaptec (ahc driver) controllers - manual says it can be target as well as initiator ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
