On 09-09-27 01:10 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
le. Meanwhile, also, this machine is noisy. Anyone know of a quiet fan I
could replace with?
Which fan. In my case the noise was from the small fan on the AGP video card
that came with the Mac from Apple. It's pretty easy to unplug the AGP fan
while the PCI bus IS slower than the system bus, it is NOT the
limiting factor in data transfer to and from the HD. in a sawtooth,
the PCI bus speed is 33 MHz and the data path is 64 bits wide.
multiply (33,000,000 cycles/s) times (64 bits/cycle), and you get 2112
Mbits/s, and dividing by 8
--- On Sun, 9/20/09, ah...clem boneheads...@gmail.com wrote:
while the PCI bus IS slower than the system bus, it is NOT
the limiting factor in data transfer to and from the HD.
in a sawtooth, the PCI bus speed is 33 MHz and the data path is 64 bits
wide. multiply (33,000,000 cycles/s) times
- Original Message
From: ah...clem boneheads...@gmail.com
and if we are talking about a drive of the same
vintage as the sawtooth in the original post, the chances are good
that it is somewhere around 5-10 MB/s sustained internal transfer
rate, and definitely not more than
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu wrote:
10K enterprise SCSI drives hooked up to UWSCSI interfaces
can blast
data at astonishing rates...until, that is, they hit the
congested two-
lane road that is the Yike's 100Mhz bus.
I thought the PCI bus was 33Mhz.
At 10:39 AM -0700 9/18/2009, John Niven wrote:
I thought the PCI bus was 33Mhz. Isn't that the bottleneck?
Just for comparison:
A 33-MHz PCI bus, 32-bits wide, does aro 132 MB/sec.
A 50-MHz System bus, 32-bits wide, does aro 200 MB/sec.
- Dan.
--
- Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA,
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Dan dantear...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought the PCI bus was 33Mhz. Isn't that the
bottleneck?
Just for comparison:
A 33-MHz PCI bus, 32-bits wide, does aro 132 MB/sec.
A 50-MHz System bus, 32-bits wide, does aro 200 MB/sec.
So a 33-MHz PCI bus, 64-bits wide, does
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:39 AM, John Niven wrote:
Maybe just lore but I remember reading that scsi drives put less
demand on the cpu than ATA, because they have a smarter controller.
Yes and no. They do use less CPU, but with CPU's newer than about a
68020 it's not noticeable.
SCSI has a
At 11:09 AM -0700 9/18/2009, John Niven wrote:
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Dan dantear...@gmail.com wrote:
A 33-MHz PCI bus, 32-bits wide, does aro 132 MB/sec.
A 50-MHz System bus, 32-bits wide, does aro 200 MB/sec.
So a 33-MHz PCI bus, 64-bits wide, does 264 MB/sec?
PCI 64-bit/33 MHz is 266.7
At 12:03 PM -0700 9/18/2009, John Niven wrote:
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Dan dantear...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember - PCI bus is for *peripheral* interconnects.
It is NOT the
memory/system bus.
But that is the route that a PCI card connected SCSI disk would go
(which is why I brought it up).
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Dan dantear...@gmail.com wrote:
yes. Just pointing out the diff, so folx don't get
confused about
you adding stick bandwidth to the thread.
So to sum up, the 100MHz system (and memory bus) bandwidth is NOT the limiting
factor for a scsi disk connected via a PCI card,
So, just to jump in and possibly confuse things more, a SATA drive,
connected via a pci card, would also be strangled by the limits of
the pci bus? So in my fw800, a drive connected to the ata100 bus would
read/write faster than one connected via a pci card? Assuming the same/
similar
Mike wrote:
So, just to jump in and possibly confuse things more, a SATA drive,
connected via a pci card, would also be strangled by the limits of
the pci bus? So in my fw800, a drive connected to the ata100 bus would
read/write faster than one connected via a pci card? Assuming the
-- On Fri, 9/18/09, Mike mike.dogho...@googlemail.com wrote:
So in my fw800, a drive connected to the
ata100 bus would
read/write faster than one connected via a pci card?
The fw800 only has 33MHz PCI slots but they are 64bit capable.
That means that a 32bit PCI card would clock a maximum
On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:41 PM, John Niven wrote:
On the other hand a pair of raid striped U160 SCSI drives attached
to an ATTO UL3D 64bit PCI card could max out at 264MBytes/s and
could be spinning at 15Krpm!
And they'll have the added benefit of substituting for a space heater.
Huh?
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu wrote:
And they'll have the added benefit of substituting for a
space heater.
I had this setup in my works 450Mhz dual sawtooth. I didn't think they were
noisy. On the otherhand I'm not saying it's the most practical compromise
On Sep 16, 2009, at 6:20 PM, nestamicky wrote:
Dan, shall we continue the discussion about having the SWAP files on
the
SCSIs? It's an exciting idea I'd dare to pursue.
Mike Bombich (of Carbon Copy Cloner fame) used to have those
directions quite clearly on his web site, and
On 09-09-17 09:25 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
Mike Bombich (of Carbon Copy Cloner fame) used to have those
directions quite clearly on his web site, and fortunately, the wayback
machine has preserved them
http://tinyurl.com/nwj7hd
This applies to OS x 10.1
http://tinyurl.com/mmomh4
Works
U2W. On 09-09-15 05:48 PM, Len Gerstel wrote:
**IF** the card is Mac compatible and IF it is OS X Bootable. The card
you linked to does not appear to be Mac compatible according to
adaptec at:
http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/support/_eol/aaa_raid/AAA-131U2/
You may want to hit the swap list
On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:20 PM, nestamicky wrote:
U2W. On 09-09-15 05:48 PM, Len Gerstel wrote:
**IF** the card is Mac compatible and IF it is OS X Bootable. The
card
you linked to does not appear to be Mac compatible according to
adaptec at:
On 09-09-16 08:34 PM, Len Gerstel wrote:
I am pretty sure there are both Mac and PC versions of this card. Take
a look at the sticker that says AHA-2940U2W. I believe the Mac version
has Mac printed on the sticker.
I had one of these in my OS9 days and it was bootable. Just remember
that
unless you are going to use a new or nearly new drive, chances are
very high that the drive itself, NOT the interface, will be what
determines the speed of data transfer. older drives can be as low as
5 MB/s sustained internal transfer rate. only the newest drives will
have sustained internal
On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:31 PM, nestamicky wrote:
On 09-09-15 12:52 AM, Dan wrote:
Personally, I prefer putting OS X on the IDE drive, so as to avoid
driver hassles. If your SCSI interface *and* drive is significantly
faster, then consider moving your swapfiles over there.
This does sound a
At 5:31 PM -0600 9/15/2009, nestamicky wrote:
On 09-09-15 12:52 AM, Dan wrote:
Personally, I prefer putting OS X on the IDE drive, so as to avoid
driver hassles. If your SCSI interface *and* drive is significantly
faster, then consider moving your swapfiles over there.
This does sound a good
On Sep 15, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Dan wrote:
At 5:31 PM -0600 9/15/2009, nestamicky wrote:
On 09-09-15 12:52 AM, Dan wrote:
Personally, I prefer putting OS X on the IDE drive, so as to avoid
driver hassles. If your SCSI interface *and* drive is significantly
faster, then consider moving your
25 matches
Mail list logo
