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

From: Petro (petro@auctionwatch.com)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 07:20:47 EST

Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC] Embedded X86 systems Was: [PATCH][RFC] AMD Elan patch"
Previous message: Adam J. Richter: "linux-2.5.2-pre8/drivers/telephony kdev_t compilation fixes"
In reply to: Henning P. Schmiedehausen: "Re: Two hdds on one channel - why so slow?"
Next in thread: Stevie O: "Re: Two hdds on one channel - why so slow?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 11:58:37AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> If you need more than say, three or four disks, your solution is
> SCSI. Or FibreChannel.

Which points up another dimension to this issue, that of "host
controller v.s. drive electronics".

    Most of the FW drives I've seen use a FW->IDE bridge and have IDE
    drives inside. This overcomes the biggest problem with IDE IMO, the
    limit of one (or two if you'll accept the performance degradation)
    drive per channel leading to lots of cables to fuss with.

I've got a 1.8T Exabyte disk box that has 24 IDE drives in it. It
attaches to the host computer via FC.

-- 
Share and Enjoy. 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: [RFC] Embedded X86 systems Was: [PATCH][RFC] AMD Elan patch"
Previous message: Adam J. Richter: "linux-2.5.2-pre8/drivers/telephony kdev_t compilation fixes"
In reply to: Henning P. Schmiedehausen: "Re: Two hdds on one channel - why so slow?"
Next in thread: Stevie O: "Re: Two hdds on one channel - why so slow?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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