Hello On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Joshua Uziel wrote: > The U5 and U10 are decent machines... moreso on the systems with the > 2MB ecache (most of the U10s, and some of the U5s). One problem > with those systems is that they have a CMD646U for an EIDE > controller... a buggy chipset that Linux deals with poorly (mostly > due to CMD's lack of desire to cooperate, I hear).
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Ferris McCormick wrote: > For what it's worth, my experience with Linux (Debian & SuSE) on an > Ultra10 suggests that if you are going to stress the disk much at > all, on such a system, you will want to use one of your expansion > slots for a SCSI card. Others will have better information, though. On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Craig Morehouse wrote: > This makes much sense. I use SCSI on all the important Intel boxes. FWIW, my Ultra5/IDE box experienced frequent disk troubles even when it wasn't stressed much (desktop). It kept randomly changing characters in files, leading to visible problems say once per 2-3 months[1]. When stressed more (mini-server for 4-5 people), the bug visibility raised to about one per 2-3 weeks, and eventually led to an unusable system. Both under Debian "pre-woody" and Solaris (I tested Solaris in order to see whether it would improve, but nope -- my impression was that it became even worse). So, I think you would be probably better off with SCSI even for desktops. Tibor Footnotes: [1] Or faster, "almost" always, when untarring huge files. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]