on Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:16:23PM +0100, Christian Schnobrich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hello,
> Now consider today's seek times of a few milliseconds combined with high > transfer rates. Add the tendency to have RAM in abundance that's mostly > used for buffering data. > To enjoy the benefits of the SCSI disconnect feature one must have > several disks in a box and much IO going on with all the disks at once, > over a prolongated time. Think of a large and busy database. Very large > and very busy. Not dozens, but hundreds of requests at once -- Google > perhaps, or FedEx, or a Bank. > > For single-user workstations, you would need very special needs to come > up with a scenario where SCSI would provide a 'feelable' advantage. > Certainly, you may from time to time point to your screen and say 'this > process went faster because of SCSI', but doing so will likely waste > more time than you just saved. Nice essay. Wearing my hat as a SAS programmer, I'm in just this situation frequently. I found that with Win2K (can't always get what you want), on a newish 2.4 GHz system with lots (512 MiB+) of RAM, and a single, fixed, 7200 RPM disk, system response slowed to a crawl running large jobs. Runtime dropped by half to a *tenth* on a slower (500 MHz) box running a striped (RAID 0) array on three SCSI disks, for same job and data. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Geek for hire: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
