home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!mhemy
- From: mhemy+@cs.cmu.edu (Michael Hemy)
- Subject: Request for summary on IDE/SCSI controllers
- Message-ID: <C17z5p.DrE.1@cs.cmu.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: n2.sp.cs.cmu.edu
- Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:51:19 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- Fellow netters,
- There seems to be some confusion on the issue of controllers. Some of
- the questions which have popped out recently (and a few others) are:
-
- -- which is better IDE or SCSI ?
- -- is it better to have the cache on the controller or in
- memory ?
- -- is a local-bus controller faster then an ISA/EISA one ?
- -- is throughput limited by the controller or by the disk ?
- -- what is a reliable benchmark for measuring throughput,
- such that it is not affected (IDE) by the cylinder where
- data is read/written ?
- -- why do most OS prefer SCSI ?
- -- what types of cache are implemented on controllers and
- which is best ?
- -- is it better to have a local-bus SCSI controller which
- controls both a HDD and a CD-ROM or a local-bus IDE
- controller for the HDD and an ISA SCSI for the CD-ROM since
- it is slow and there is no point hogging the bus with
- long slow transfers? Or maybe some other combination is
- better?
-
-
- All answers to the above, and any other helpful information on the
- issue will be greatly appreciated. When I have enough answers I will
- post a summary.
-
- Thanks again,
- --Michael.
-