Re: Two hdds on one channel - why so slow?

From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen (
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 06:58:37 EST

If you don't want to read such words, please use a Killfile.
X-Copyright: (C) 1996-2002 Henning Schmiedehausen
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)

Dana Lacoste <> writes:

>Also the bandwidth differences :

>Firewire (Generation 1, what you can get now) is 400Mbit/s
>FC Gen 1 is 100MByte/s
>Gen 2 is 200MByte/s
>(OK, I know those last two numbers are right, but I don't
>know what the NAMES of the standards are :)

>Firewire isn't even supposed to be in the same league! :)

That wasn't supposed of IDE in the war against SCSI either, but look
where we're now. :-)

The one argument that noone brought around here is (and it is the
killer argument for me in IDE vs. SCSI): "external disk trays". Try
that with IDE (current IDE please. No SerialATA. ;-) ) without lots of
"out of spec" cables dangling out of your "enterprise computing

If you need more than say, three or four disks, your solution is
SCSI. Or FibreChannel.


Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH

Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:28 EST